Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

New Cable, Hampton

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Postmaster-General, following his communication to the hon. Member for Henley in May, 1946, that a new telephone cable from Kingston Blount to Hampton would be laid within a few months, when it is now anticipated this work will be completed.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I am sorry that owing to the large number of similar cables required throughout the country and to the shortage of materials, I am still not able to say when this particular cable can he provided.

Sir G. Fox: Will the Postmaster-General inform the Hampton parish council that this is part of the programme of "Let Us Face The Future"?

Emergency Repair Service

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Postmaster-General whether an emergency repair staff is always ready to repair telephone breakdowns on the lines of doctors, chemists, veterinary surgeons and the like.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Outside normal working hours, emergency linemen are on "call duty" at their homes, which are specially provided with telephones. They arc available at any time to repair telephones likely to be concerned with safety of life.

Waiting Applicants

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Postmaster-General how many applicants are awaiting installation of telephones in England, Scotland and Wales at the present time.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: On 30th April, 1947, there were 390,104 applications for telephones outstanding in England, Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Morrison: What priority is given to nurses, doctors and hospitals, where necessary?

Mr. Paling: I think priority is given to people concerned with the saving of life, but I do not know whether nurses are included.

Mr. Morrison: Will the Postmaster-General look into this question again, particularly in regard to district nurses?

Mr. Paling: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Can the Postmaster-General say what is the average waiting time?

Mr. Paling: Not without notice.

Part-time Work

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Postmaster-General whether it is a general practice for full-time local government officers to work in their spare time as Post Office telephone operators; and whether, in the particular case to which his attention has been drawn, he will replace this part-time labour by disabled men or women.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: No, Sir. We do not expect part-time staff employed on telephone work in the evenings to he dependent on that work for their livelihood. Preference is given to men who are not in full-time employment during the day, but where these are not forthcoming, we employ men who have other full-time work. Preference is also given to registered disabled men, and over 13 per cent. of the total number of men employed on telephone work are in this category. I am unable to agree to the discharge of the part-time men at the particular place referred to by my hon. Friend. I understand that the local office of the Ministry of Labour has no applicants for part-time employment on telephone work in the evenings.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Postmaster-General saying that it is not possible to get disabled ex-Servicemen, or others who are fit only for light work, to cover these duties, and is it not most undesirable that full-time local government officers should be working part-time in this way?

Mr. Paling: I have stated that wherever possible we get disabled men, and that 13 per cent. of these people are disabled.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Heating, Post Office

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Postmaster-General in view of the fact that space heating is prohibited as from 5th May, why the steam heating was full on in the post office at Whittington Avenue, E.C.3, after that date.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: The Post Office occupies, as lessees, only a part of the ground floor and basement of No. 5 Whittington Avenue in which is accommodated the Leadenhall Street Branch Post Office. The heating for the Post Office is provided, in common with that for the rest of the building, by the lessors and is not controlled by the Post Office. I am informed that although the system still retained some heat, the boilers were not fired on 5th May.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Postmaster-General realise that my Question refers to "after" 5th May? Does he not realise also that it sets a very bad example to the rest of the country if Departments do not do their best to comply with the regulations in regard to space heating?

Mr. Paling: My answer indicated that although the system still retained some heating, the boilers were not fired.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Postmaster-General to read the Question again, which states "from 5th May"?

Letter Deliveries

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce have passed a resolution, of which he has been sent a copy, protesting, in view of the time taken in the transmission of letters from London, against his new proposal to restrict daily postal deliveries there to two forenoon deliveries in the business area of that city and to abolish the after-

noon deliveries; and if he will now direct that at least the present number and times of deliveries be maintained.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I have received a copy of the resolution passed by the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, but I regret that I should not be justified in excluding Aberdeen from modifications of services which are designed to save manpower and which are being applied without exception throughout the country. I am advised that the changes at Aberdeen will not affect materially the time of transmission of letters from London.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Postmaster-General realise that if letters are not sorted in time for the morning delivery, they miss a whole day, having regard to the hour the train arrives at Aberdeen?

Mr. Paling: We have had some regard paid to that. I think the train arrives at about 8 o'clock, which means that the letters should catch the 11 o'clock delivery.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the train generally arrives after 9 o'clock, and that the letters are not sorted in time for delivery that day?

Mr. Paling: If the train is an hour late, I think the letters would catch the second delivery.

Lady Grant: Does the Postmaster-General consider that with the reduction in postal facilities all the requirements of the City of Aberdeen can be met, and in view of the general reduction in postal services everywhere, will he make a corresponding reduction in postal charges?

Mr. Paling: That is rather a different matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Air Training Corps

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Air the present strength of the A.T.C.; and the maximum allowed.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The present strength of the A.T.C. is about 47,000 The maximum strength allowed is 75,000.

Mr. Lindsay: Is it not rather a pity that this excellent corps is being allowed to run down like this? What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage them?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think it was inevitable that there should be some drop after the war. But that drop was arrested at the end of last year, and the force is now increasing.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the strength of the force as compared with a year ago?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Considerably less. A year ago it was about 57,000. It fell at the end of January to 46,600, and has since begun to increase.

Oakington and Waterbeach

Mr. Stubbs: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of aircraft operating from the R.A.F. stations at Oakington and Waterbeach, Cambridgeshire; on what service the machines are engaged; the total number of persons employed at each station and the total cost thereof.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: One squadron of 20 aircraft is based at Oakington, and another squadron at Waterbeach. The aircraft are Yorks, and they are engaged in the passenger and freight services run by Transport Command to the Middle East, India and Singapore. Nine hundred and thirty-four members of the R.A.F. are stationed at Oakington, and 801 at Waterbeach. The cost of the two stations is about £560,000 a year.

Mr. Stubbs: Could not my right hon. Friend see that the personnel of these two stations were all put on one station, which would release about 300 or 400 acres for food production?

Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend is wrong in thinking that one station could take both squadrons.

Mr. Boothby: Would it not be possible to concentrate our air strength in that part of the world at the old-established prewar stations like Mildenhall, Stradishall and Honington, instead of keeping so many of them on good arable land, which is being wasted?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The whole question of the location of our stations has been under consideration for a long time.

Miho Air Station

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that at the B.C. air station at Miho, Japan, potatoes are issued with only three meals

a week; that there was no heating for airmen throughout the winter; that mail from the United Kingdom takes nearly four weeks to arrive; and what steps he proposes to take to improve conditions at this station.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I have received full reports from the British Commonwealth Air Station at Miho on all the matters mentioned in his Question by my hon. Friend. For the last seven weeks, potatoes have been served on the average, 11 times a week; the airmen's messing committee consider that the quantity and the quality of the food are very good. Airmail usually takes a fortnight to reach Miho from the United Kingdom; sometimes it may take a few days longer, when aircraft are delayed by adverse weather. The heating of the buildings at Miho during the winter left much to be desired; the station offices, the messes and the recreation rooms were heated, but for most of the winter most of the sleeping quarters were not. I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that temporary stoves have now been provided in nearly all of them; for next winter permanent steam heating will be installed.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the Minister say why, nearly two years after the war, conditions in Miho should approximate so closely to the conditions in Great Britain?

Surplus Telephones

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Secretary of State for Air if, in view of the delay suffered by the general public in being put on the telephone, owing to shortage of material, including instruments, he will release to the Post Office the many instruments lying idle at Tarrant Rushton aerodrome.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. The hon. and gallant Member will be glad to know that the Post Office have already been asked to take away all the telephones at Tarrant Rushton that are no longer needed by the R.A.F.

Tarrant Rushton (Guard)

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that the aerodrome and buildings at Tarrant Rushton are practically unguarded, with the result that there is no protection for the large amount of valuable Government property still there; and what action he proposes to take to prevent theft.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The station at Tarrant Rushton is not now in use, but a small detachment of the R.A.F. is stationed there to act as guard. I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for raising the matter, and I have given instructions that careful inquiries should be made.

Colonel Wheatley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at times there is no one on the aerodrome at all?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have seen the reports in the Press, and I am inquiring into the matter.

Mr. Charles Williams: Why was not this done before? Is it not a case of incompetence?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not understand what the hon. Member means. There has been a guard on the station. Allegations have been made that on one occasion the aerodrome was unguarded, and I am inquiring into that matter.

Fly-Posting

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he is aware that the theatrical performance, "Wings," produced and presented by his Department, is being advertised extensively, and almost exclusively, by means of fly-posting; and whether this has been authorised by his Department;
(2) whether his attention has been called to the continuous fly-posting of recruiting bills on private property by his Department and to the consequent defacement of existing Government and other posters; by whose authority this has been done, in contra-distinction to other classes of Government advertising; and if he will give instructions for the immediate discontinuance of this practice.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I regret that the practice of fly-posting has been adopted by some local recruiting officers. This was done without the authority of my Department, and I have given instructions that it must stop at once.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that the Labour Movement generally was built up by fly-posting?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that the Labour Movement has more solid foundations than that, but in any case the practice has the disadvantage of being illegal, so T have stopped it.

Personal Case

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether 4018804 A.C.2 J. B Starkey, stationed at R.A.F. camp, Bridgnorth, Salop, whose commanding officer has recommended his release from the Service on the ground of the extreme financial hardship suffered by this airman's family, has yet been released

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am considering with every care the application for release made by A.C.2 Starkey, and I will write to my hon. Friend with the least possible delay.

Mr. Wilkes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a matter of principle is at stake here? Is he aware that the man's commanding officer, after a full review of the facts, recommended his release, and that during the two months this case has been under consideration conditions have so deteriorated that a grant has had to be made to this airman from the R.A.F. Benevolent Fund?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, it was because it was thought there was real hardship that it was decided to make a grant from the Benevolent Fund. I fully agree that this is a very important matter, and that is why I am giving it my personal attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Skyways, Ltd. (Chartering)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many aircraft belonging to Skyways, Limited, are being operated by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.C.; what proportion, respectively, this represents of the total aircraft on chartered or scheduled services operated by each of the two Corporations named; whose administrative staff is being used; and what is being paid per aircraft mile for Dakota craft and the latest type of interim four-engined aircraft chartered from Skyways, Limited, respectively.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): In order to supplement their awn capacity to India, the British Overseas Airways Corporation have arranged for Skyways, Ltd., to operate one York service once a week between United Kingdom and


Karachi on a short-term basis. This is approximately equivalent to the utilisation of one aircraft, which represents less than 1 per cent. of the total number of aircraft in the Corporation's own service fleet. The service is flown by crows provided by Skyways, Ltd., but the Corporation's administrative staff is used. The charter rate is fixed on a business basi between the two companies, and it would be contrary to normal commercial practice to publish it to third parties. No aircraft belonging to Skyways, Ltd., are on charter to British European Airways Corporation.

Mr. Rankin: Am I to understand that Skyways, Limited are concerned only with the Indian route, and that they have no charter planes flying on any European route?

Mr. Lindgren: There is only one charter by Skyways, Limited. They are an efficient charter company, and I believe they have direct charters between certain firms in the Far East and in Europe.

Sicily and Malta

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, whether it is intended to use either Castel Benito or an aerodrome in Sicily instead of Luqa aerodrome in Malta; and what additional work is required to extend Luqa airfield in order to make it safe for new types of aircraft.

Mr. Lindgren: My noble Friend has already received reports which suggest that Luqa aerodrome in Malta may be unsuitable for continuous use by four-engined aircraft. These reports are under urgent examination by my noble Friend, in conjunction with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for Air. As to the second part of the Question, it would be premature to give a definite reply about the additional work required at Luqa, until the results of the examination are known. Meanwhile, it is probable that British Overseas Airways Corporation services will be re-routed, at least temporarily, to Castel Benito.

Brigadier Mackeson: Would the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that so far as possible British money and materials will be spent in the Colonies or Dominions? In a case like this, where the Air Ministry and other Departments are concerned, can

the hon. Gentleman say which is the coordinating Department?

Mr. Lindgren: My noble Friend takes the initiative in the operation of air services and has the active co-operation of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In the case of a joint-user aerodrome, such as this, he has the co-operation of the Secretary of State for Air. It is the policy of my Department, wherever possible, to see that aerodromes are established on British territory.

Priority Allocations (Continent)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to what extent passages by air to the Continent are made available to those who wish to go on business journeys of importance to the export trade of this country compared with tourists who go there to spend a holiday, thereby absorbing foreign exchange without any corresponding contribution.

Mr. Lindgren: Of the 19 scheduled services at present operated between this country and the Continent only six are now subject to priority control. On the question of the method of priority allocations on those services, I refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr Jennings) on 14th May last.

Mr. Cooper: Is my hon. Friend not aware that of first importance to this country at the present time is the export trade and not the export of tourists; and will he try to persuade his noble Friend to get the Corporations to introduce some system of priority, similar to that in force under the Ministry of Transport in connection with sea passages?

Mr. Lindgren: My noble Friend and I are the servants of this House, and we desire to express the feeling of this House that, as quickly as possible, all priorities on air routes should be given up. That has been the desire of the House, and it has also been the policy of my noble Friend. I agree that, as soon as all priority control is given up, the person who books a passage, irrespective of the value or purpose of his travelling, takes a seat, and sometimes business people are hindered by this practice.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Can the hon. Gentleman say, where priorities still


continue, how much notice must be given to the aircraft companies that a priority seat is to be abandoned?

Mr. Lindgren: A priority seat abandoned by the individual who has been given priority?

Colonel Hutchison: Yes.

Mr. Lindgren: He is supposed to give up the seat as soon as he knows that he will not be taking it. The same rule applies as to normal commercial passengers. If he gives it up in a period of time which enables a rebooking to be made, he is relieved of the cost of the seat. If he is unable to resell, a percentage charge is made for the seat, according to the period that has elapsed before his giving it up.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN

Political Prisoners (Relief)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the appeals recently made by the political prisoners in Alcalá de Henares to the International Red Cross for a supply of vitamins necessary to keep them alive in the terrible conditions under which they are imprisoned; and if he will make representations on their behalf

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): The answer to each part of the Question is: Not yet, Sir. My right hon. Friend is, however, making inquiries and will be glad to receive further particulars from the hon. and learned Member.

Penal Commission (Membership)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will resist the admission of Spain to the International Penal and Penitentiary Commission having regard to the continued violation by the Spanish Government of the principles maintained by civilised countries relating to the treatment of prisoners.

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. and learned Member is apparently under a misapprehension. Spain has been a member of the International Penal and Penitentiary Commission since before the first World War. The question of continued Spanish

membership is under consideration by His Majesty's Government, but a decision on this point is not a matter for His Majesty's Government alone.

Mr. Pritt: Will His Majesty s Government, so far as they have any influence on the matter, oppose its continuance?

Mr. Mayhew: As I have said we have the matter under consideration.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is it not contrary to the aims and ideals of that Commission to allow Franco ideals to be propagated upon it?

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (FOOD DEMONSTRATION)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the recent demonstration of io,000 workers in Vienna who went on strike because of the shortage of food and what steps are being taken to improve the position.

Mr. Mayhew: This demonstration was ostensibly against short rations of potatoes and meat which Austrian farmers have failed to deliver in sufficient quantities. The Austrian Marketing Association for potatoes has recently been strengthened but the restoration of the full potato ration is not expected until after the next harvest, as a considerable part of last year's crop has by now been used up irregularly. As for meat, low controlled prices have led to evasion of slaughtering instructions by farmers. As an immediate remedy the Austrian Government have now offered a subsidy of one schilling per on all meat delivered.

Mr. Freeman: Can the hon. Gentleman say if every effort is being made to increase the local production by the provision of seeds, fertilisers and agricultural machinery?

Mr. Mayhew: We are making every effort in that direction. On the precise point, perhaps the hon. Member would put down a separate question.

Mr. Warbey: In view of the substantial grant in aid which this country has made to Austria, will my hon. Friend continue to impress upon the Austrian Government the need to secure better deliveries from the peasants, who have been feeding horses in preference to cattle, and pigs in preference to human beings?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. We are making these suggestions very vigorously, and we are in direct and constant touch with the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture in connection with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND

United Kingdom Creditors

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the announcement that the Polish Financial Agreement is to be ratified, he will give an assurance that before this takes place, all just claims of creditors of the Polish State in England will be safeguarded.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir: but this matter was discussed during the recent Anglo-Polish trade talks, about which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made a statement in the House on 8th May. A satisfactory understanding was reached, but since it is still provisional and further talks are to follow, I should prefer not to make a detailed statement just yet.

Western Frontier

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the definitive Polish western frontier will be the same as that decided upon at Potsdam.

Mr. Mayhew: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's remarks on this subject in his opening speech in the foreign affairs Debate in this House last Thursday.

Professor Savory: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that a very large number of Poles who were evacuated from the territory East of the Curzon Line are now colonising land East of the Oder; that they are suffering intense anxiety as to their future position, and it is, therefore, essential that some definite steps should be taken?

Mr. Scollan: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are a very large number of Poles in Scotland, and the Scottish people are anxious to know when they will be able to get rid of them?

Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on this single issue, the present Polish Government and the Poles opposed

to that Government in this country are agreed; and is he further aware that the Poles claim to have a letter written by Sir Alexander Cadogan assuring them of British support for their views, irrespective of what the Americans or anyone else may say?

Mr. Mayhew: I have no knowledge whatever of such an undertaking. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I will give it further consideration.

Mr. Stokes: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that unless the frontier is readjusted as contemplated at Potsdam, the pressure of population will force it to be adjusted, and there will be another war in the future?

Mr. Mayhew: We approach this question with an open mind. We feel that it is necessary to have a full examination of all the facts involved before any final and irrevocable decision is taken.

Poles, U.K. (Repatriation)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, since it is the recommendation of His Majesty's Government that all Poles in the United Kingdom and in the British zones of Austria and Germany should return to Poland, what assurance he has received that the many thousands of Poles who fought in General Anders' Corps in Italy after more than 18 months' forced labour in Siberia and other parts of the U.S.S.R., and thousands of other Poles with known anti-Communist views, will be able to live the lives of free men if they accept the advice of His Majesty's Government and return to their homeland.

Mr. Mayhew: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Belfast University (Professor Savory) on 19th May.

Major Beamish: Cannot the Minister understand that Poles who have once experienced Communist methods at first hand, and particularly the methods of the N.K.V.D., may not be very anxious to return to their country in the present circumstances?

Mr. Mayhew: That is a decision for the Poles themselves to take. We have made our view plain that they are needed at home and should go home.

Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that he has not made his view plain that they are needed at home, but that they ought to go home, and does he still stand by that?

Mr. Mayhew: We certainly stand by the many statements we have made to that effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (REFUGEES)

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many refugees from the Communist regime in Yugoslavia have arrived in the British zone of Austria; what arrangements are being made for the future of these people; how many of these refugees are so-called Volksdeutsche; what approaches have been made to the Yugoslav Government to stop the expulsion of these people in conditions of great cruelty; what replies have been received to these approaches; and what he estimates to he the future extent of this problem.

Mr. Mayhew: As the answer is necessarily very long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Mr. Warbey: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is any evidence to support the allegation made in the Question that the Yugoslav Government are, in fact, expelling people under conditions of great cruelty?

Mr. Mayhew: I think that they have, at times, been expelled in conditions of unnecessary hardship.

Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that I myself was on the Yugoslavia border about six weeks ago, and I can confirm that they were being expelled under conditions of the utmost cruelty?

Following is the answer:

5,500 Yugoslavs have arrived in the British zone of Austria since the end of the war. Their ultimate disposal will he the concern of the International Refugee Organisation working in conjunction with the zonal authorities. In addition there are approximately 35,000 Yugoslav Volksdeutsche in the British zone who have either fled or been expelled from Yugoslavia.

His Majesty's Ambassador in Belgrade has repeatedly demanded that the Yugo-

slav Government should halt these expulsions, which, as the hon. and gallant Member's Question implies, are often carried out in conditions of unnecessary hardship and are not sanctioned by any international agreement. Although the Yugoslav authorities have on many occasions given satisfactory assurances in reply to our representations, the unauthorised movement of Volksdeutsche into Austria from Yugoslavia still continues.

As regards the last part of the Question, it is believed that there remain considerable numbers of Volksdeutsche in Yugoslavia. There has been no international agreement as to their future and it is therefore impossible to estimate the future extent of the problem facing the British authorities in Austria.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Press Representation, United Kingdom

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make arrangements for representatives of the German Press in the British zone to be located in London, with the object of keeping Germany as fully informed as possible as to the policy and outlook of the British people and His Majesty's present Government.

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend is considering the possibility of making some such arrangement. In the meantime, a number of German journalists are visiting this country for periods of six weeks.

Herring Contracts

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the continued failure of his Department to place contracts for cured and klondyked herring on behalf of the Control Commission for Germany is causing great anxiety in the industry; and, in view of the present food crisis in Germany, if he will now state the amount of cured and klondyked herring which it is proposed to export to the Control Commission.

Mr. Mayhew: The procurement of food for the British and American zones is the responsibility, not of any British authority, but of the joint British and American authorities in Germany. Those


authorities have now authorised negotiations for the purchase of 25,000 tons of cured herring from this country, and, subject to agreement on price, there is every prospect of an order also being placed for klondyked herring.

Mr. Boothby: In view of the starvation in Germany and the amount of valuable nutritious food now available, does not the hon. Gentleman think it scandalous that these negotiations have not already been completed, and can he give any indication when they will be brought to a conclusion?

Mr. Mayhew: I fully agree about the urgency of the problem and the value of the fish. I cannot give a definite date when these contracts will be through. All I can say is that it is agreed in principle and negotiations arc taking place with regard to price.

Mr. Beechman: Will the Minister say whether similar arrangements will be made for Cornish pilchards?

Mr. Mayhew: That is another question.

Mr. Mitchison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the best herring comes from Loch Fine and not from Aberdeen, and will he keep that in mind?

Mr. Mayhew: I should be 10th to pronounce upon the relative merits of herring from hon. Members' constituencies.

Repatriation of Prisoners

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the German prisoners of war, totalling approximately 2,000,000, will be repatriated from each of the allied countries by 31st December, 1948, as arranged at Moscow and what has happened to the balance of approximately 2,500,000 of whom no mention was made in the Moscow report.

Mr. Mayhew: It was agreed in Moscow that all German prisoners-of-war located in the territory of the Allied Powers and in all other territories will be returned to Germany by the end of 1948. No figures were specified in this decision, but the figures of holdings tabled at Moscow were:


France
631,483


United States of America
15,003


U.S.S.R.
890,532


United Kingdom
435,295



As regards the second hall of the Question, I am not aware of any well-established set of figures with which to compare those announced by the four Governments at Moscow.

Mr. Stokes: Can my hon. Friend say what has happened to over 2,500,000 prisoners which the Russians had? Have they died of starvation, been enlisted in the Russian Army, or what?

Major Beamish: Or are they in Siberia?

Mr. Mayhew: I am aware that there has been some surprise felt by the lowness of the figure given by the Russian Government in view of their great victories in the war.

Mr. Boothby: In order to facilitate the repatriation of the prisoners, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to exterminate the German people by starvation?

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (REPATRIATED RUSSIANS)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the forcible repatriation of some 185 Russians was attempted from camps Nos. 6 and 7 under British control at Rimini on 8th May; whether he will state the number of attempted suicides, the number of deaths and the number wounded now in hospital as a result of this action; and whether he is aware that this forced repatriation is contrary to promises made to this House.

Mr. Mayhew: I have received a telegraphic account of the incident to which my hon. Friend refers. My information is that there were no suicides, nor attempts of suicide, nor woundings, nor admissions to hospital. From the party of 180 men, three were excluded before entrainment on medical grounds, and one died of pneumonia. Three men escaped. I am told there were no other incidents. The men repatriated fall within the categories of Soviet citizens who are serving members of the Soviet armed forces or who gave active assistance to the enemy, and who, under the instructions issued to the Allied Command in Italy by the British and American military authorities, fall to be repatriated


under the Yalta Agreement on Repatriation. No undertaking has been given which would preclude the repatriation of men within these categories.

Mr. Stokes: As there is evidently some varied evidence, will my hon. Friend examine the evidence which I will lay before him—

Mr. Gallacher: Why does not the hon. Gentleman join the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory)?

Mr. Stokes: I can do without your advice. Is it not outrageous to expect to continue to carry out a policy laid down at Yalta, which clearly adumbrated that there should be a fair trial and return of these people, when there is now no fair trial; and is my hon. Friend aware that these people were got into the train by being told that they were going to Scotland to help the miners?

Mr. Mayhew: I will willingly examine any further evidence which the hon. Member supplies. There is certainly a variation in the evidence, but possibly most of the variation is on the hon. Member's side. I cannot agree with his remarks on the Yalta Agreement, which it is our clear duty to carry out.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Jamaica (Workers' Bank Accounts)

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Jamaican agricultural labourers, on their return from the U.S.A., are able to obtain full written statements of their accounts in the Agricultural Workers' Branch of the Government Savings Bank.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I am making inquiry on this point from the Governor, and will communicate further with the hon. Member

Groundnuts

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the possibility of growing groundnuts in any part of the British West Indies.

Mr. Creech Jones: Groundnuts are frequently grown in the West Indies for local consumption. I do not see much oppor-

tunity of early development for export without interference with other export crops.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a scientific investigation in British Guiana and British Honduras and see if it is not possible to start a similar scheme to that in East Africa in view of the fact that there is plenty of labour available in those places?

Mr. Creech Jones: A mission is shortly going to British Guiana and Honduras under the Chairmanship of Sir Geoffrey Evans and this point is being examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIJI

Food Export Organisation

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to encourage the proper organisation of the cultivation and packing of food for export in Fiji; and, in particular, what encouragement is being given to the development of co-operative methods.

Mr. Creech Jones: A recent expert report on the sugar industry has established that it is closely organised on efficient lines. Copra, the other principal foodstuff grown for export, is handled by the Fiji Copra Board. A significant development has been the establishment of a modern copra crushing mill. I have urged the Governor to encourage co-operation in Fiji and, under the guidance of local officers, some advances in this direction are being achieved. The Co-operative Societies' Ordinance enacted this year will undoubtedly provide a further stimulus. In addition, the Government are about to recruit a marketing officer, one of whose functions will be the development of cooperative markets. He will play an important part in promoting greater efficiency in the matters to which my hon. Friend refers.

Banana Exports

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give figures for banana production in Fiji over the last 10 years.

Mr. Creech Jones: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Davies: Do these figures show any drop in the banana production in Fiji? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is need for an energetic atttack on the problem of the economic rehabilitation of Fiji at the present moment?

Mr. Creech Jones: Very careful consideration is given by the local Government to the future economic progress of Fiji. In reply to the first part of the question, there has been a considerable drop in the production of bananas, compared with the prewar years.

Following is the reply:

As part of the Fiji banana crop is consumed locally, and cultivation is carried on by numerous small-holders, exact figures of production are not available.

Export figures are as follow:


(cases of 90 lbs.):





1937
…
…
…
154,419


1938
…
…
…
158,195


1939
…
…
…
56,946


1940
…
…
…
90,290


1941
…
…
…
40,745


1942
…
…
…
91,662


1943
…
…
…
76,943


1944
…
…
…
36,667


1945
…
…
…
77,176


1946
…
…
…
87,439

During the war years the following bananas were supplied to the Armed Forces:


(cases of 90 lbs.):





1940
…
…
…
10,000


1941
…
…
…
20,000


1942
…
…
…
30,000


1943
…
…
…
50,000


1944
…
…
…
20,000


1945
…
…
…
20,000

Local consumption is estimated roughly at the equivalent of 50,000 cases per annum.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (APPOINTMENT OF CHINESE)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Chinese in Hong Kong have been appointed to posts in the health department, which used to be staffed by Europeans; and how far other departments have followed a policy of appointing local residents to high-grade posts.

Mr. Creech Jones: Twelve Chinese have been appointed to such posts, including the acting Deputy Director of Health Services. As regards the second part of the Question, all Departments are actively pursuing the policy of appointing duly qualified Chinese to high-grade posts.

Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on this side of the House we welcome this policy of increasing the responsibility in the Colonies and handing over so-called European jobs, as in this case, to the Chinese? Will he press every other Department in the Colonial Office to follow the same lines as the Health Department seem to be following?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is the case in the Public Works Department for engineers, and in the Education Department, where this policy is now being carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (GOVERNMENT SERVANTS, GRANTS)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that at the time the rehabilitation grant was made to Asiatic Government servants in Malaya by the British Military Administration under M.U. circular 130/46 and 131/46, it was stated that these grants would not be recovered except from Government servants who were convicted of collaboration with the enemy; and why these sums have been deducted from the grants now being made for back pay during the period of occupation.

Mr. Creech Jones: These grants were originally intended to represent a settlement of the question of back pay during the period of occupation. There is no question of recovering them, but it is reasonable that they should be taken into account in the much more generous settlement recently decided upon.

Mr. Gammans: Is the Minister aware that there is still considerable dissatisfaction amongst the junior Civil Service in Malaya about the settlement generally, and will he say if he can do anything to allay that dissatisfaction?

Mr. Creech Jones: There is much misunderstanding, but I think that everyone is agreed that it is a generous settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL DEFENCE

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Defence what postwar defence plans have yet been worked out for the Empire and Commonwealth; and whether all such plans have been agreed by the Dominions' Governments.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Contact with the Dominions. on questions of defence is a continuous and confidential process. I can, however, assure the hon. and gallant Member that the Dominions are consulted as a matter of course on all defence matters of common interest.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the fact that the war, in which the Dominions played such a valiant part, has been over for two years, and in view of the fact that the strength of our postwar Army has already been announced in this House, surely some definite plans have now been drawn up which will satisfy both this country and the Dominions in the matter of security.

Mr. Alexander: That is certainly not the kind of thing which can be dealt with by question and answer.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman escaped giving an answer to what I asked, which was to state whether a definite plan was in existence.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman said that that was a matter which could not be answered at Question time, and I think that that is the answer to that.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Ice Cream Licence

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food, why Miss Oram, 4 High Street, Pangbourne, Berkshire, has been refused a licence to manufacture ice cream when this business was carried on satisfactorily for many years before 1940 when Miss Oram volunteered for work of national importance.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): Local food offices have now been authorised to consider applications from people who claim to have been established as ice cream manufacturers before the war, and who have not hitherto qualified for allocations of controlled ingredients because they did not apply for them earlier. If Miss Oram will now apply to her local food officer he will be able to consider her case.

Milk Strike (Points Expenditure)

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Minister of Food if he will consider making a points bonus to those customers registered with the London Co-operative Society for milk who, during the strike of roundsmen, were obliged to expend their points on tinned and dried milk.

Dr. Summerskill: I have given careful and sympathetic consideration to my hon. Friend's proposal but I regret that the practical difficulties are insuperable.

Mrs. Manning: Is the hon. Lady aware that a large number of families who were unable to go to Walthamstow for milk had to spend the whole of their month's points on tinned milk for their children who had no fresh milk at all during this strike, and does she realise that they have had to do without points food all this time?

Dr. Summerskill: I fully realise that, but I must remind the hon. Lady that it is impossible to distinguish between those who had to go to fetch their milk and those who did not.

Dominion Apples

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food why the export of apples from New Zealand to this country has been stopped; and, in view of the urgent demand for apples in this country, if he will arrange to import the largest quantity obtainable.

Dr. Summerskill: As my right hon. Friend explained in a reply on 2nd April. I am afraid we shall not be able to import any apples from New Zealand this season as there is no refrigerated tonnage available for this purpose after providing for the refrigerated space required to import


meat, dairy products and other commodities. The import programme for the second half of the year has not been settled yet, but we shall certainly try to get all the apples that we can.

Mr. Freeman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a shortage of doctors as well as of apples, and will she endeavour to increase home supplies so that there are sufficient to provide us with one a day?

Mr. Walkden: Why is it that there are refrigerator ships available to bring in from the Mediterranean luxury fruits which we could really manage without, but none to bring apples—which are sold at a controlled price—from New Zealand and Australia?

Dr. Summerskill: We need much more refrigerator tonnage for apples than for the small amounts of the other fruits which my hon. Friend has mentioned. May I remind him that there has been a strike in the Argentine, a strike in Sydney and a go-slow movement in New Zealand?

Mr. Walkden: But why do we import five times more fruit from the Mediterranean than from New Zealand?

Maize Allocation

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if he has pressed the United States Government for a further allocation of maize to Britain, in view of the announcement that 150,000 tons from current stocks are to be made available to France compared with only 25,000 tons to Britain.

Dr. Summerskill: I have no reason to suppose that the substantial quantity of maize which we are hoping to obtain from the U.S.A. in the July-September period will not be forthcoming. I understand that the emergency allocation of 150,000 tons to France is to be used as bread grain to supplement the inadequate supply of wheat and flour.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister say whether this allocation was made by the International Food Emergency Committee and, if so, whether our representatives on that Committee made due representations to see that we have a proper share of maize?

Dr. Summerskill: All allocations to this country are made by the international committee. I cannot speak for France.

Oranges and Grapefruit (Prices)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that growers of oranges and grapefruit in Jamaica receive only approximately 6s. and 5s. per box, respectively, for oranges and grapefruit; that the price at which this fruit is sold to the public is approximately 50s. per box; and if he will give figures showing at each stage of the purchase of these fruit by his Department how the difference is made up.

Dr. Summerskill: Supplies of oranges and grapefruit imported into the United Kingdom from Jamaica are purchased from the Jamaican Government on an f.o.b. basis and I have no information about the price received by the grower. As I have stated on previous occasions, I am not prepared to disclose prices paid by my Department for particular purchases, but with permission, I will arrange for the other information for which the hon. Member asks so far as it relates to sales within the United Kingdom and to the types of container most commonly used for oranges and grapefruit imported from Jamaica, to be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gammans: What justification is there for the hon. Lady not producing these figures, since whatever mandate she may have to subject the people of this country to bulk purchase there is no reason why the people of Jamaica should not be given the information?

Dr. Summerskill: My Department is the biggest trading concern in the world, and we have the same justification as any astute business man for withholding the prices we pay.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the hon. Lady say whether the Colonial Office intervenes in any way between the price paid here for grapefruit and that which the grower receives?

Dr. Summerskill: The question refers to Jamaica alone.

Mr. Gallacher: When making bulk purchases of these commodities, would not the Minister consider using the Co-operatives for the purpose of distribution and thus cut out a whole lot of other people?

Mr. Gammans: Is the hon. Lady aware that the analogy she uses is not in the least a fair one because the growers have no

SWEET ORANGES.


Type of package. F


Weight Group. 79-83 lbs. net.
Average Weight. 81 lbs. net.
Grade 1st Condition





s.
d.




First-hand selling price
…
…
41
0 per package




Wholesale margin
…
…
2
6 per package




Wholesale selling price
…
…
43
6 per package




Retail margin
…
…
10
6 per package




Retail selling price
…
…
54
0 per package

East African Groundnuts Scheme

Dr Stephen Taylor: asked the Minister of Food if employees of the United Africa Company working on the groundnuts project will receive pay and work under conditions not less favourable than comparable Colonial civil servants; and whether they will in due course have opportunities for study leave and a sabbatical year.

Dr. Summerskill: The salaries and conditions of employment of the staff of the East African groundnuts scheme are being fixed after consideration of the salaries and conditions attaching to comparable appointments in the Colonial Service and elsewhere. The appointments are for the present being made on a short-term basis and the question of the eligibility of staff for study leave and a sabbatical year does not therefore arise.

Destroyed Food, Roxton (Replacement)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the destruction by fire of the local store in the village of Roxton, Bedfordshire, he will take immediate action to arrange for

other market to which they can sell their grapefruit?

Following is the information:

the foodstuffs destroyed to be replaced and made available to the villagers so as to safeguard them from all avoidable hardship.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. Replacement was arranged at once.

Farm Workers' Rations

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what arrangements he has made for the issue of supplementary rations to farmworkers during hay-time when many will be working a 14-hour day away from home.

Dr. Summerskill: When a canteen or pie scheme is not available allowances are granted at the following weekly rates per head: tea 2 oz., sugar 5 oz., margarine 4½ oz., cheese 2½ oz., preserves 4½ oz., points 3, bread units 12.

Mr. Hurd: May I point out to the hon. Lady that she has not answered the Question I put to her? We understand that the present arrangements are to come to an end on 30th May and I should like to know what arrangements have been made to take their place.

Dr. Summerskill: The arrangements made are those I have just read out to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hurd: How are the rations to be supplied?

Dr. Summerskill: By the farmer or, as the hon. Member well knows, the foreman or one of the workmen can distribute them.

Mr. Hurd: That is going back to the bad old arrangements of last year.

Tomato Prices

Mr. Walkden: asked the Minister of Food why he authorised an increase of over 60 per cent. in the mid-June retail selling prices of home-grown and Dutch tomatoes as compared with a similar period in 1946; whether he is aware that substantial margins of profit were afforded to all sections of the trade which handled tomatoes on the control price list of 1946 and that these 1947 prices are comparable to an advance of 110 per cent. on the mid-June prices of 1938–39; and, in view of the importance of tomatoes to the dietary of the average consumer and his purchasing power, whether he will again review the net effect of this new control price.

Dr. Summerskill: The increase in the mid-June price amounts to 11s. per 12 lb. chip of which 8s. 9d. is payable to the grower and the balance to the distributive trades. The increase to the grower was made because of increases in wages and other costs of production. Owing to the lateness of the season, the proportion of the crop marketed at these early high prices will be smaller than usual. As regards the distributive trades, the increases are due to increased costs including the higher costs of wastage.

Mr. Walkden: Does not the Minister realise that, whether it be for breakfast, lunch, tea, or supper, tomatoes play a more important part in the dietary of the average citizen than any other commodity; is she not aware that the action of the Minister means a big step up in the cost of living of such people; and what action does she propose to take to deal with those who, by their representations, have brought about this fanciful and fantastic increase?

Dr. Summerskill: I recognise the consumer need, although I would not

necessarily accept my hon. Friend's dietetic dictum. He must remember, however, that we have also to consider the producer and to see that he is properly remunerated.

Holiday Resorts

Brigadier Low: asked the Minister of Food for what reasons he is planning to allot to boarding house and private hotel owners in some parts of England, during the holiday season, basic permits for rationed food, insufficient for the full number of persons covered by the catering licences concerned, especially when the boarding houses and private hotel owners have, to the knowledge of the local food offices, received bookings for the total number on their catering licences; and whether he will at once instruct local food offices to issue full permits and abandon the present wasteful practice which requires so many supplementary applications and supplementary permits.

Dr. Summerskill: Catering establishments in seaside resorts are granted permits to cover expected fluctuations in consumer needs based on the best estimates available.

Brigadier Low: Does not the hon. Lady agree that the best estimate of the requirements is likely to be the actual bookings made, and if they have been made surely she can issue full permits? That is the point of the Question.

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, and Blackpool is being given an allowance on the actual bookings made.

Mr. Driberg: Will the hon. Lady consider withdrawing all permits and licences altogether from hotels, such as the Burlington at Margate, which attempt to discriminate against prospective customers on racial grounds?

Brigadier Mackeson: May I ask the hon. Lady not to discriminate against any particular hotel, since if she does she may well prevent the Foreign Secretary completing his holiday in my constituency. where he is welcome?

Dr. Summerskill: I have replied as to the situation in Blackpool, but I should require notice concerning Margate.

Mr. Driberg: The question was not about Blackpool, but about "some parts of England."

SARAWAK (OFFICIALS' RESIGNATIONS)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that more than 300 officials have lost their employment as a result of the enforcement of the provisions of Secretariat Circular No. 9/1946 in Sarawak; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Creech Jones: The officials in question resigned their appointments in circumstances which were fully explained in my reply to a question on 22nd January last. I have nothing to add to that reply.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does my hon. Friend realise that what has happened in the case of these 300 officials is nothing more nor less than a form of political victimisation so far as their employment is concerned?

Mr. Creech Jones: Surely these persons resigned entirely on their own responsibility and they were immediately replaced by other Malays.

Mrs. Manning: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 58 out of 60 teachers here are not in schools, and what is being done to give the children their schooling?

Mr. Creech Jones: I understand that there are 73 teachers but endeavours are being made to fill the appointments.

MALTA (EMIGRATION)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the fact that the population of Malta is much greater than the islands are able to support, he will encourage emigration to this country to relieve domestic help and other manpower shortages here.

Mr. Creech Jones: There is no obstacle to the entry of any Maltese British subject into this country, and many Maltese have in fact come here on their own initiative to take up employment. Inquiries are proceeding regarding the numbers of Maltese willing to come to this country for employment in occupations which are suffering from shortage of labour, but who have not the resources to do so unaided. Should the results of these inquiries justify it, consideration will be given to the making of special arrangements.

Mr. Lipson: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the surplus population of Malta is said to be in the region of 100,000 and that Malta has a very high birth rate; and is it not therefore necessary for him to take more active steps than he appears to be taking to deal with this problem?

Mr. Creech Jones: It may possibly appear that I am taking very few steps, but I can assure the hon. Member that I have been very active in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Sea Cadet Corps

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the present strength of the Sea Cadets; and what is the maximum number allowed this year and in the last financial year.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The present strength of the Sea Cadet Corps is 31,450. In the last financial year provision was made for a maximum of 41,000 Sea Cadets. The number actually reached was 33,251. For 1947, financial provision has been made for a maximum strength of 36,000.

Illegal Immigrant Ships (Bunkering)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what evidence he has to show, in the case of ships intercepted while carrying illegal immigrants to Palestine, from what source their bunker fuel was obtained.

Mr. Dugdale: Apart from the supplies taken at their port of departure, certain ships have been known to take on coal at foreign ports on the way. The evidence of these cases has been reported by the consular representatives and Lloyds agents. As the ships' papers are invariably destroyed before interception, there is no evidence available from this source as to where they bunkered.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have received reliable information that these ships were bunkered with fuel and coal from Italy through the black market, and that the supplies probably came from U.N.R.R.A. or its successor? Will he ask the British representative on the spot to have a searching inquiry?

Mr. Dugdale: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me the information first and then I will naturally inquire into it.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the Mandate laying down that Palestine was to provide a- home for the Jews, how can there be such a thing as illegal immigrants?

War Memorials

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many naval war memorials for the 1939–45 war are under construction or under consideration; and whether consideration has been given to constructing a main memorial to all naval and marine personnel who lost their lives.

Mr. Dugdale: Proposals are at present under consideration in conjunction with the Imperial War Graves Commission to extend the existing war memorials at Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth to include the names of members of naval and marine services, including the Maritime Regiment, who lost their lives during the 1939–1945 war and have no known graves. Further proposals are also under consideration for the erection of three smaller memorials, one at Lee-on-Solent for naval air personnel, one at Liverpool for those from the Merchant Navy who lost their lives whilst serving in the Royal Navy under the T.124X agreement, and one at Lowestoft for members of the Royal Naval Patrol Service. Proposals have been considered for a general memorial to officers and ratings of the naval and marine services to be provided from funds subscribed within the Royal Navy, but these have been found to he impracticable.

Air Mechanics (Training)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why a number of men who joined the Royal Naval Air Service in October last for service as air mechanics spent the first six months of their service, apart from six weeks' disciplinary training, wholly in mounting guard, peeling potatoes, cleaning decks and other semi-skilled work and did not start their course of training until May, 1947.

Mr. Dugdale: On completion of their disciplinary training at naval establishments air mechanics are sent to R.A.F. establishments for their technical training Except for a few men whose training was

retarded owing to sickness, all the men entered at H.M.S. "Royal Arthur" in October, 1946, passed on to these in the normal way. I understand, however, that in the early part of this year there was some interruption in training owing to the unusually severe weather, and men were employed on other duties.

Mr. Pritt: Would the Minister make further inquiries, because my information in respect of a large number of these men is that after the disciplinary training they have never done anything for weeks and weeks except this business of mounting guard and so on?

Mr. Dugdale: I am sorry to appear to be avoiding this issue, but after disciplinary training they go to R.A.F. establishments, so the question must be addressed to the Air Ministry.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Would the hon. Gentleman agree with a number of hon. Members in this House that potato peeling is a skilled occupation and not semi-skilled?

An Hon. Member: The "Ayes" have it.

W.R.N.S. (Release)

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give any information of the date of release of the higher groups of W.R.N.S., particularly in the M.T. driver and radio mechanic categories, in view of the fact that many of these girls have been in the Service for over two years and are anxious to commence their civilian careers, and especially as there is no difficulty in getting sufficient volunteers for this service.

Mr. Dugdale: The latest forecast shows that Group 65 of W.R.N.S. motor transport drivers will be released during the period 16th August to 30th September and Group 64 of radio mechanics (A.R.M.) and (A.W.M.) during the period 1st October to 15th November. It is not possible at present to forecast releases beyond these dates. Although there is no difficulty in obtaining volunteers for the W.R.N.S., the speed of entry is limited by training capacity. We are, however, doing what we can to bring all categories into line by increasing training capacity for entries in those branches which are behind the average level of releases or in which large numbers have to be released in the near future.

Commander Noble: Would the Minister give an assurance that everything is being done to expedite these releases?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, Sir.

Engravers (Wages)

Mr. Collins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that, in considering wage awards to inside engravers on the basis of individual merit, the Admiralty Wages Board have decided that no merit rate shall exceed 405. above the standard minimum rate; and if he will take steps to remove this handicap to ability and effort.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The standard rate of wages of these men is determined in accordance with the agreed practice in the printing trade in the London district from which the hydrographic supplies department was transferred to Taunton during the war. I do not consider that a range of individual merit rates up to 40s. above this standard can reasonably be regarded as a handicap to ability and effort.

Mr. Collins: Is my hon. Friend aware that chart engravers can obtain employment only with the Admiralty and that the merit restriction is unfair to them as they are left without a choice in the matter? Is he also aware that it is utterly contrary to the declared policy of this Government to fix a ceiling on wages, and will he have another look at the matter?

Mr. Edwards: Whether it is considered to be sufficient or not, I take the view that it is so, but this matter can be raised through the appropriate channels, namely, through the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council. If the Engravers' Association so desire, they can communicate with that council for it to receive further consideration.

Instructor Branch

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the present numbers in the instructor branch of the Royal Navy; and what is the required establishment.

Mr. Dugdale: There are now 645 instructor officers in the Royal Navy. In addition, 31 officers of other branches are serving as full time education officers. It is not yet possible to give a final required

establishment, but it is believed it will be somewhat above the numbers now serving.

REQUISITIONED PREMISES (RELEASE)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Works whether his attention has been drawn to paragraph 50 of the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates regarding the slow rate of release of residential and non-industrial premises; and what steps he intends to take to speed up the release of such premises in Edinburgh.

The Parliamentary Secretly to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Durbin): Yes, Sir. Requisitioned flats and houses have had priority of release in Edinburgh as it other towns and any remaining under requisition by my Department will be released as soon as other suitable alternative accommodation can be found and our temporary office building under construction is completed.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that despite this alleged priority, the actual rate of releases is very slow indeed, and will he look into the matter further?

Mr. Durbin: When I was last in Edinburgh I visited a large site on which very considerable building operations for Government temporary offices are proceeding as fast as material supplies permit

Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that football pool offices have been derequisitioned before private dwelling houses, and will he look into this and see that private housing is given priority?

Mr. Durbin: That is another question, but I shall be delighted to have the information.

Sir William Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that the National Coal Board have taken over six former residential houses in the West end of Edinburgh?

WAR CRIMES TRIALS, FAR EAST

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement as to the progress of the trials


of the Japanese war criminals; how many have been tried; how many sentenced to life imprisonment; how many have been executed; how many are now held for ultimate trial; and at what date it is estimated that the trials will be concluded at the present rate of progress.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): The progress of war crimes trials by British Military Courts in Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaya, Burma and Borneo is being satisfactorily maintained. Up to 25th April, 1947, 688 Japanese and Koreans had been tried. Of these, 53 were sentenced to life imprisonment and 235 to death; the latter figure includes sentences not yet confirmed, but at least 166 death sentences have so far been carried out. One hundred and forty-one accused are now either on trial or are awaiting trial with the cases against them complete, and 1,605 are in custody whose cases ire under investigation or who are suspects held pending investigation.
The latest figures received from the Australian authorities indicate that 733 Japanese have been tried by Australian Military Courts in Singapore, Port Darwin and Rabaul. Of these, 371 have been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment and 142 to death. In Singapore at the end of April there were five accused still awaiting trial by Australian courts. Forty-one accused have also been tried by United States courts in Japan in cases involving British victims; 34 have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment and seven to death. No figures are at present available to show how many are still awaiting trial in Japan in similar cases.
It would not be in the public interest to disclose the date on which war crimes trials by British Military Courts in S.E.A.L.F. are expected to be concluded.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: Would the Leader of the House be good enough to tell us how far he proposes to go today in the event of

the Motion on the Order Paper being carried?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): We hope to get a fair way today without sitting unduly late. I think the Order Paper is such that we ought to make substantial progress. What we are concerned about is that we should get the Report stage and the Third Reading of the National Service Bill and the Statistics of Trade Bill by tomorrow night. How the House divides the time between the two, we do not mind as long as we get them. I should have thought that with reasonable co-operation and a good spirit all round—[Laughter.]—well, I really think so—we ought to get both without unduly late Sittings, which are not good for anybody.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman will realise, I think, that while we on this side of the House have no desire to make difficulties for the passage of the National Service Bill, it is not we who take up the greater part of the time for discussion. Therefore, we can give no undertaking.

Mr. Morrison: I do not know about the greater part of the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know the percentages exactly, and it is a fair point. It varies a bit each day, but it is a perfectly fair point and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have taken steps to impress it upon my hon. Friends.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, by arrangement through the usual channels, the whole of the first day of the Committee stage was devoted to demonstration Amendments by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; that the whole of the second day was devoted to the Government Amendment to reduce the period from 18 to 12 months, and that the proper Committee examination of the Bill could not begin until 11 p.m. on the second day?

Mr. Morrison: I read the Committee stage proceedings. I know all that happened, including the prominent part taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the National Service Bill be exempted, at this day's

Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided; Ayes, 241; Noes, 120.

Division No. 218.]
AYES
[3.34 p.m.


Adams, W T (Hammersmith, South)
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Mulvey, A


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Granville, E. (Eye)
Nally, W


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon A. (Wakefield)
Naylor, T. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)
Noel-Baker, Capt. [...] E (Brentford)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Grierson, E.
Orbach, M.


Austin, H. Lewis
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Parker, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J
Parkin, B. T.


Bacon, Miss A
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Balfour, A.
Gunter, R. J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Pearson, A.


Barton, C
Hall, W. G.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Battley, J. R.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pritt, D. N.


Bellenger, Rt Hon. F. J
Hardy, E. A.
Proctor, W. T


Benson, G.
Harris, H. Wilson
Randall, H. E


Berry, H.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Ranger, J.


Beswick, F.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rankin, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Rees-Williams, D. R


Blackburn, A R
Hobson, C. R
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Blyton, W. R.
Holman, P
Rhodes, H.


Bottomley, A. G.
House, G.
Richards, R.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hoy, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hubbard, T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bramall, E. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Royle, C.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Irving, W. J.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Byers, Frank
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Sharp, Granville


Castle, Mrs B. A
Janner, B.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Champion, A. J.
Jay, D. P. T.
Shurmer, P


Chetwynd, G. R
Jager, G. (Winchester)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Clitherow, Dr. R
Jager, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Silverman, S S. (Nelson)


Cocks, F. S
John, W.
Skeffington-Lodge, T C


Collindridge, F
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C (Shipley)
Skinnard, F. W


Collins, V. J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Colman, Miss G. [...]
Keenan, W
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Comyns, Dr. L
Kendall, W. D
Snow, Capt. J. W


Cook, T. F.
Kenyon, C
Solley, L. J.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr G
Kinley, J.
Sorensen, R. W


Corlett, Dr. J
Kirby, B. V
Sparks, J. A.


Cove, W. G.
Lavers, S.
Stamford, W.


Crawley, A.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Steele, T.


Cunningham, P.
Leslie, J R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng Univ.)
Stross, Dr. B


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipson, D. L.
Stubbs, A. E.


Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. [...]
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Diamond, J.
McAdam, W
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobbie, W.
McAllister, G.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Driberg, T. E. N
Mack, J D
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Durbin, E. F. M
McKinlay, A S
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Dye, S
McLeavy, F
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Timmons, J.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Titterington, M. F


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Tolley, L.


Fairhurst, F.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)



Farthing W. J.
Marquand, H A
Usborne, Henry


Fernyhough, E.
Mayhew, C. P.
Vernon, Maj W. F


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Medland, H. M
Walkden, E.


Foot, M. M.
Mellish, R. J
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Forman, J. C.
Middleton, Mrs. L
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow E.)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mikardo, Ian
Warbey, W. N.


Gaitskell, H T. N
Mitchison, G. R
Watson, W. M.


Gallacher, W.
Monslow, W
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Ganley, Mrs C. S
Morley, R.
West, D. G.


Gibbins, J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Gilzean, A
Morrison, Rt. Hon H (Lewisham, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mort, D. L.
Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B


Gooch, E. G
Moyle, A.
Wilkes, L.




Wilkins, W. A
Wills, Mrs. E. A
Young, Sir R (Newton)


Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Wise, Major F. J
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Williams, D J (Neath)
Woodburn, A



Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Woods, G. S
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Rt. Hon T (Don Valley)
Wyatt, W.
Mr. Simmons and


Willis, E.
Yates, V F
Mr. Popplewell.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P G
Head, Brig, A. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Aitken, Hon. Max
Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt Hon Sir C
Prescott, Stanley


Allen, Lt-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Hollis, M. C.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Baldwin, A. E.
Hurd, A.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Baxter, A. B.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Jennings, R.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Beechman, N. A
Keeling, E. H.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Birch, Nigel
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Ropner, Col. L.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bossom, A. C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W
Linstead, H. N.
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P G T
Low, Brig, A. R. W
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Butcher, H. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Channon, H.
McCallum, Maj. D
Smith, E. P (Ashford)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Smithers, Sir W.


Crowder, Capt. John E
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Snadden, W. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
MacLeod, J
Spearman, A. C. M


Darling, Sir W. Y
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Spence, H. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


De la Bère, R.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Digby, S. W.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Mellor, Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Drewe, C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Duthie, W. S.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A F


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Touche, G. C.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon W. S. (Cirencester)
Walker-Smith, D.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fox, Sir G.
Neill, W F. (Belfast, N.)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gage, C.
Nicholson, G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr T D.
Nield, B (Chester)
York, C


Glyn, Sir R
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P



Grant, Lady
Nutting, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gridley, Sir A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Mr. Studholme and


Grimston, R. V
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Major Conant.


Harvey, Air-Comdre A V
Pickthorn, K.



Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE BILL

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Candidates for Commissions.)

Where persons are during their terms of whole-time or part-time service selected as candidates for commissions in his Majesty's Forces, it shall not be made a condition of their acceptance as such candidates that they shall perform additional whole-time service after the completion of their terms of whole-time service except in accordance with regulations made by the Service Authorities under this Act.—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.42. p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
During the Committee stage of the Bill the Opposition moved the introduction of a new Clause to the effect that regulations should be introduced providing for the attainment of commissioned rank by selected men during or immediately after the expiry of their 12 months' service. I promised then to consider whether some suitable Amendment could be put on the Order Paper to meet the situation as it was submitted to me then and this new Clause is submitted in fulfilment of that promise. The reduction of the whole-time period of service to 12 months has naturally given rise to the question: Can officer training he completed in the time, or what other arrangement is proposed? Of course we should hope to get some candidates from among National Service men suitable for training as regular officers, but those selected for training for regular commissions will of course, make a fresh contract and thus be enabled


to undergo the full course of military training which would be essential to prepare them for regular commissions; and they would be released from their engagements if they afterwards failed to gain such a commission. But in general, National Service men who wish to become officers will be thinking in the main of obtaining commissions in the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces. They will not want to do more full-time service therefore than is absolutely necessary, and will be anxious to get back to their civilian professions or trades. We are seeking to meet that situation as well as we can.
It is anticipated that in the case of the Army these cases will be very largely met. Nearly all the men will be selected from National Service men for training for commissions of that kind. We think we can complete their training within a year except in a few of the more technical cases. While we have not yet reached detailed and final decisions in the case of the Royal Air Force, they tell me that probably the great majority of the branches of that Service will be covered in the same way. Of course in the Royal Air Force there are specialist and technical commissions for which it would not be possible to complete training in that time and that is one of the reasons why we shall wish to lay regulations. The same applies, of course, very largely to the Royal Navy. I think we have met the situation by providing that a man shall not be required, as a condition of his obtaining a commission from among National Service candidates, to serve more than the standard whole time period as a condition of getting his commission unless regulations are laid. I quite understood the point which was pressed that in the case of a Bill of this kind which deals with National Service for a considerable period in peacetime, the House would need to be informed of the general conditions governing commissions under National Service, and therefore I propose to lay regulations for the selection of candidates for commissions of that kind before the House and they will be able to follow the normal Parliamentary procedure and raise in the House any points on which they are not satisfied. I think I have met the point of view that was put forward and I hope the Clause will be passed right away.

3.45 p.m.

Captain Marsden: I am not clear, from what the Minister of Defence said, how the Navy is to come into this. I think the whole Clause is for the benefit of the Army, although a few kind words were said about the Royal Air Force, and finally about the Navy, to assure the House that they have not been overlooked. But let the House understand that no person, after one year's service, with one possible exception which I will mention later, can be expected to get a commission in the regular Navy. A year's service will be of assistance towards that knowledge which every officer must have. It will be a great help in developing those officer-like qualities which he will need later on, but to say that he will get, or can be anywhere near, getting a commission in 12 months, is fooling the House.

Mr. Alexander: I have not said anything of the kind. What I said was that the case of the Royal Navy was very much like that of the special and technical branches of the Royal Air Force, and therefore we should need special regulations.

Captain Marsden: I hope the Minister will tell the House more. I am a little bewildered. There are conditions in which, after a year's service, a man keen on officer rank can achieve it. He can join the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and from the ranks of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve he may get a commission. That is one way of doing it, but to get it straight away is not possible.

Mr. Alexander: Mr. Alexander indicated dissent.

Captain Marsden: The Minister shakes his head. I am glad he indicates that that will not be the case. There is a type of commission which might be given. We are talking here about a man or boy of 18 years of age, but many others will come in at a later stage in life who may have achieved great technical knowledge in radar, or something of that sort. They may be given a commission, not in the R.N., but in the Reserve, or as we called it during the war, the Special Reserve, distinguished by a green stripe. There is certain technical knowledge for which general naval service is not necessary, and a man possessing such knowledge might be given a commission. However, I will not press the point. The


Minister is evidently doing his best, and no man can do more than that. But I think everybody is still very bewildered as to how any one in the Naval Service can imagine that he will get a commission, until some period of time has elapsed, and some experience has been gained after one year's service.

Mr. Paget: The hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) should remember that a great number of naval officers who did great service in the last war, had much less than a year's service. In fact, I think I am right in saying that at one time, more than half, indeed, more than three-quarters, of the officers serving in His Majesty's Navy had been commissioned with less than a year's service. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member's remarks can be taken as wholly correct. On the other hand, I agree with him that a single year would not bring any one up to the tremendously high standard required of a regular R.N. officer. We must, however, remember that the whole object of this conscription Bill is to create a reserve, and that reserve cannot be expected to be quite up to the standard of the full-time regular Force. I wish to make this suggestion, which I believe is important, from the point of view not only of the Navy but of the other Services concerned. This reserve will not be of much use to us unless we also have a reserve of officers. A large reserve of privates is something, but it would not be entirely satisfactory. I suggest that full use should be made of the cadet organisations to bring people up to the standard where they can be trained as officers, and that a system should be instituted, whereby people can go through the voluntary cadet organisation, which will provide great encouragement for the recruitment of these cadet organisations. Provided that they get a proper recommendation, they can then go straight into O.C.T.U. and spend their year of training there. Officers' training corps have in the past brought lots of young men up to the standard at which they were fit to be trained for officers. I believe that if the cadet corps were expanded and used upon that basis, they would bring forward the officer material, the people who are keen—

Mr. Speaker: This new Clause deals with the method of selection of candidates

for commissions in the Forces under this Bill and not the general question of how commissions are granted.

Brigadier Low: As I am speaking after the hon. and now learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I should like to take this opportunity of extending to him my congratulations, and those of some of my colleagues, on die event which took place this morning. I wish to ask the Minister whether he envisages that officers who are commissioned by regulations made under this new Clause will be commissioned in the auxiliary Forces and will later be allowed, if they so wish, to transfer to the regular Forces. If so, will regulations to provide for that be made in accordance with the last line of this new Clause?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman intimated that some of the officers created under this new provision would probably desire to serve in what I might call the Territorial Force Would he indicate whether he intends that officers for the Territorials shall be provided in this way, or from what source does he anticipate that those officers shall be provided? I should have thought that perhaps the majority of officers for the Territorials in the future would come forward this way very satisfactorily.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 1, to leave out from the beginning, to "it," in line 2, and to insert;
The service authorities shall make provision for the attainment of commissioned rank either during or immediately upon the expiry of the term of whole time service by persons called up for service under this Act and selected as candidates for commissions in His Majesty's forces and.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the propriety of asking himself whether this Amendment is not an improvement upon the Clause to which the House, at his suggestion, has just given a Second Reading. The main question seems to be quite clear, and without wishing to be controversial I think we may regret that we have not had any discussion upon it earlier. We had no discussion at all on the Second Reading. Although the topic was introduced by one or two


speakers on this side of the House, Ministers were then apparently unprepared to deal with it. The question is surely this: We are now to have a semi-permanent conscript scheme. I take it that it is ministerially intended to be really permanent, because of what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence told us about his courage in introducing a conscription scheme in what he described as a more or less normal peacetime. If such a system is to work, it will mainly—certainly largely—depend upon the question of whether the Force which is provided, is or is not properly officered. Therefore, it seems to me plain that from the first, the House and the country should have known how it was intended to get officers for that Force, and how it was intended that conscripts should reach officer rank.
I am not very much impressed by the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman suggested just now—and also I agree an hon. and gallant Member on this side of the House—about the more technical branches in the Army, about the Navy and about the flying crews for the Royal Air Force. Of course, it is true that for those branches, it is not to be expected that a man shall learn everything and reach the level of a competent officer within 12 months. That does not necessarily mean that he is not fit to be commissioned at the end of 12 months, because hitherto, before the war, men have reached commissioned rank in all those departments without any previous whole-time service at all. That is what has happened in this country under the voluntary system—men got Territorial commissions, Reserve commissions and equivalent commissions in the Navy without having had any whole-time service.
Turning to foreign parts, it was certainly true in both France and Germany before 1939 that a man had a smaller whole-time service if he was going into the officer reserve than did those who were going into the reserve, as other ranks or ratings. Even in those cases I do not think that the difficulties are insurmountable. The main thing is that it should be made plain in the Statute, and not merely introduced afterwards by administrative action by the right hon. Gentleman and the Service Ministers. It should be made quite plain in the Statute that the

normal method of getting a commission on the Reserve should be that one gets one's commission just at the end of one's conscript service.
If that is not done there will be two great disadvantages. The right hon. Gentleman told us, I think it was at an early part of the Committee stage, that one of the advantages of cutting down conscript service from 18 months to 12 months was the number of labour hours thus saved. I ask him to consider that in getting civilian life going again, in getting our productive capacity going, increasing it and so on, the most important class of people will be the best young men as they are now emerging or have been emerging in the last year or two from the schools. Therefore, any advantage there is in cutting down the interruption of the civilian careers of people who are not going to rise above the rank of private, is very much grater indeed in connection with those who are fit to be commissioned. It ought to be made plain in the Statute that such young men will not have their ordinary civilian professional careers interrupted for longer than would be the case if they remained in the ranks.
If not, there will be two disadvantages. One is that the Services will get fewer of the best young men in their reserve of officers than they ought to get; the other is that the officering of civilian life will be delayed and will, to some extent, get the best men coming to it a year or two later than they intended to, and more or less disgruntled. Those are the disadvantages we wish to avoid. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for going some way to meet us, but we are still not clear that he has done all that he ought to have done. We still ask him to consider this Amendment. Along with it—I hope this is not out of Order—I ask him to consider the question of young men who, by a more or less formal pledge, have received, or are on the point of receiving, commissions, the more or less formal pledge being "If you have a commission in this regiment, you are expected to stay x years." I am quite sure that that system, if allowed to go on, will have very bad effects, especially very bad social effects. I am quite sure that something of that sort has been happening, and is still happening. We ought to have assurances about that.

Commander Noble: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Clause.

Mr. Alexander: I shall be very glad to meet the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) as far as possible, but I think that if he will read in print what I said just now in moving the Second Reading of the new Clause, he will see that most of the points he has made have been met except in those cases where candidates are selected for commissions in the more technical and specialist sides of the Services The statement I made was that in the case of the Army, the great majority of men selected from National Service candidates for commissioning in the reserve forces will be able to complete their training within 12 months. No question of extra time arises. I have said that probably it will not be possible to complete training for certain specialist and technical commissions, and that we will lay regulations governing the process under which selection will be made in those cases, so that the House will have an opportunity of considering them and raising any point which arises. Therefore, I think that the great majority of the cases which have been in the minds of the hon. Member and his hon. Friends who have been interested in this matter, have been met He says, of course, that the provision should be made plain in the Statute. On that point, I would say that the position is made plain in the Statute except in so far as the detailed regulations governing those who will be selected for the more technical and special commissions are concerned These will have to be covered by regulations and can be checked up on in the House. All the other part will be put into the Statute by the new Clause. Therefore, I think I have met his point.
If I may reply to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low), and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart), I am certain that the very large proportion, especially in the Army, of the officers who will be required for the reserve forces of the future—and we shall be building up very large reserves—will have to he found from among those who will be selected from the National Service candidates in the course of their normal training. If there is any question with regard to ultimate transfer from, say, the auxiliary to the regular forces, I have no doubt it will be arranged that that can be covered

by the regulations to be submitted to the House. I should very much prefer that, when we are dealing with the selection of candidates for regular commissions, we should try to arrange that they make a decision whether or not they are to be regular officers during their period of training in the ranks so that we can decide then whether they show the officer-like qualities and general ability that the authorities think will be necessary in giving what is a very great honour, the opportunity of a very great career as a regular professional officer in the Services. Nevertheless, if it is found necessary to arrange for transfer, I have no doubt that any such provision could be covered in the regulations. I hope that with this explanation, hon. Members will feel that in the main the spirit, at any rate, of what the hon. Member for Cambridge University had in mind, has been met.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: None of us on this side of the House would like to appear ungracious to the right hon. Gentleman who, undoubtedly, has done his best since the Committee stage to meet us on what we consider to be a most important point. Some part, at any rate, of my disquiet as to the actual wording of the Amendment was removed by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I should like the opportunity, which he suggested, of reading in detail the report of his remarks, but it seems to me that he laid down, much more clearly and definitely than we have had it up to now, the principle that, wherever possible, these people would get their commissions during their 12 months' service. The cases in which we all admit it would be impossible for them to do it, seem to me to be relegated by the right hon. Gentleman to the exception rather than, as appeared before, proving to be the rule. All that I think my hon. Friend desires now by his Amendment is to ensure that the emphasis which the right hon. Gentleman gave to this question in his speech, which is ephemeral in character, should appear in a permanent form in the legislation. I hope my hon. Friend will agree when I say that it has now come to a matter of wording. I think that there is no difference in spirit between the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves. If before this is discussed in another place, the right hon. Gentleman would see whether some other form of words


could be introduced which, while not altering the substance in any way, would give greater emphasis to the fact that a year would be the normal method, and a longer period, by regulation, would be the exceptional method, I think that would go far to meet us. In those circumstances, I would advise my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: Perhaps I may, by leave, ask one question. I am sorry if this is confronting the right hon. Gentleman with a difficulty, but I do not think it is. May we take it that the Amendment is contrary to what the Secretary of State for War—I am not in the least making a point against him here—said at an earlier stage, when he was inclined to think that a high proportion of these young men getting commissions would have to be held, in order to deal with the next intake of conscripts? May we take it that the remarks which I attributed to the Secretary of State for War do not indicate what is now the official view?

Mr. Alexander: I think the explanation by the hon. Member is quite right, although I would not accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War gave that impression. It may have been somebody else.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Unconditional registration of conscientious objectors in certain circumstances.)

The local tribunal, if satisfied by the application duly made under section five of the principal Act, or the appellate tribunal, if satisfied on appeal that the ground upon which application was made is established, shall by order direct that the applicant shall without condition be registered in the register of conscientious objectors.—[Mr. Hopkin Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The present position in regard to this matter is established by Section 5 of the Act of 1939. Under that Section, conscientious objectors can be registered

under three conditions, but I propose to deal only with Subsection (6). The object of this New Clause is to delete Subsection (6), which provides for the registration of conscientious objectors in two classes—the unconditionally exempt and the conditionally exempt. The object during wartime is perfectly clear. During wartime, all industry, as well as the Armed Forces, is necessarily directed to the winning of the war, but war conditions are not applicable in any sense to peacetime. If a person objects to military service and appears before the local tribunal, and that tribunal finds that he is a conscientious objector and should be registered, the question remains whether he shall be registered as unconditionally exempt or exempt upon conditional circumstances. The man may very well object to doing all forms of military service, both combatant and noncombatant, and he may, in wartime, object to doing any service which assists in the prosecution of the war. In a case which was accepted as a bona fide case, the objector was registered unconditionally where he objected to all forms of service, but, in some cases, where there was an objection to doing military service, both combatant and non-combatant, but no objection to engaging in some form of civilian national service under control, the objector was registered as conditionally exempt.
That is easily understandable in wartime, but it is perpetuated in this Bill, and what I am seeking to do is to retain the unconditional registration only. Where a man establishes that he has an objection to military service, both combatant and non-combatant, he should be registered unconditionally in the register, and the other classes, who would otherwise be registered in wartime as conditionally exempt, should adopt some other means. A young man of 18 makes an application to a tribunal, and, in wartime, it is found that he has no objection to doing agricultural work or becoming a miner, and he is setting out upon a university career. In wartime, agriculture is essential for the prosecution of the war and so is mining, and one can understand the State saying to a man "You object to military service in any form, but this is national service, and we will conditionally register you, subject to your carrying out this work." That case no longer holds in these times. Why should a man, once he has established his case


as a conscientious objector, be directed to do agricultural work, mining or any other form of civilian occupation under Government control?

Mr. Beverley Baxter: It is a form of punishment.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Yes, and it is a great mistake, which arises because the Minister has the right to direct labour in wartime, and what is being done here is to direct conscientious objectors in peacetime to do certain work merely as a penal measure and as a form of punishment. Why should this one class be so treated? If we admit this policy in peacetime, we are then admitting the policy of the direction of labour for one specific object. If we are to have direction of labour, let it be universal. Why should this class, once the only case which they are permitted to make—the case of the conscientious objector—has been established, have a form of punishment brought to bear upon them? That seems be quite unfair to one class of the community, and is an assumption by the State, of rights which, quite clearly, it has no claim to adopt in peacetime. The consideration that justifies this action in wartime is that the State is concerned with its own preservation, but, in peacetime, it has no such right.

Professor Gruffydd: I beg to second the Motion.
I am not at present concerned to ensure that the "provisional" conscientious objector has justice done to him; I want to make a plea for the "out-and-outer" whom I must declare to have my complete sympathy. I am concerned with the man who objects to being placed under military law in any circumstances, and I do not understand the attitude of a man who will palter with his conscience and allow himself to be placed under military orders to do certain things and not other things. I wish to call attention to some of the hopeless confusion that took place under the old Acts. There were for instance cases where men were given exemption on condition that they did agricultural work. If the man was poor, he had to be an agricultural labourer, but if he was rich—and I have known cases of this kind happening—he would buy a farm, put in a bailiff to work the farm, and himself go on with his own work in his office or on the Stock

Exchange or wherever he happened to be. That happened more than once, and I could give instances and names. It happened sometimes that a conscientious objector was allowed to evade military service if he carried on with the work which he was already doing. Some of them were teachers who were given exemption on condition that they remained in their profession. But a neighbouring education authority dismissed such men from their position as teachers because they were conscientious objectors. In future, I hope we shall not have one authority dismissing people for being conscientious objectors and another retaining them for the same reason. My last reason for seconding this Amendment is that the present Clause seems to me to go 75 per cent. towards perpetuating the very hated system of direction of labour in peacetime.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I think that the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have moved and seconded this new Clause, and who have so much sympathy with conscientious objectors, are doing conscientious objectors an injustice. They are attempting to narrow the limits under which they can be registered. I suppose that conscientious objectors are as difficult to define as any other category of persons. Take the Liberals, for instance. It is very difficult to define National Liberals, Liberal Nationals, Independent Liberals, and other Liberals.

Mr. Frank Byers: Has not the Minister taken the trouble to read the announcement made during the last to days that the Liberal Nationals and the Conservatives are now to all intents and purposes combined?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid that is only adding to the confusion. 1n the case of conscientious objectors, the difficulty is equally great. One man may be a conscientious objector on religious grounds. According to the sect to which he belongs he might be intensely and vehemently opposed to any form of military service. Then, of course, there is the conscientious objector—

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The Statute sets out clearly that a conscientious objector must object to being registered in the military register for the performance of military service and combatant duties. It says nothing about religion.

Mr. Ness Edwards: But that does not relieve a tribunal of the duty of deciding whether or not a man's conscientious objection is genuine. The tribunal decides that, in relation to the professions the man makes when he comes before it. Some men will argue on religious grounds; others will argue on political or humanitarian grounds as the basis of their objection. The tribunal has to decide, from the evidence before it, how deeply a man holds that view. With the best tribunal in the world, and with the best applicant in the world, there is always an element of doubt in these matters. It is a question of degrees. They are not all white, or all black; there are some grey in between, and what we are providing for in the Bill—

Professor Gruffydd: Does the Minister really claim that degrees of conscientious objection are provided for in the Bill?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am surprised at the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd). It was he who raised this point when he said that he had no time for the man who was prepared to do some sort of service, and that all his sympathise were with the "out and outer." He admits that there are at least two kinds—the "out and outer" and the man prepared to be registered conditionally. In supporting this new Clause, the hon. Gentleman is putting the conditional man out completely.

Professor Gruffydd: I must correct the Minister there. What I said was that I did not regard the other person as a conscientious objector in the same sense at all.

Mr. Ness Edwards: That makes the position even worse. The man who seriously objects to going into the Armed Forces, but who is prepared to render some national service, should not, according to the hon. Gentleman, be registered as a conscientious objector. That is not the position which this House has taken up. It has taken the view that when a man claims that he has conscientious objection to combatant service, it should then be put to him whether he is prepared to render some other national service. The man might well say that though he is not prepared to go into the Army, he does not wish to dodge his contribution to the State, and is willing to render some national service. In the past, the House has held that such a man is no less a conscientious

objector, and no less entitled to be registered as such. I think that the mover and seconder of this new Clause are really doing a disservice to a very respectable section of the conscientious objector category.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I feel that the Minister has answered the case put forward. I entirely agree with him that the law ought not to provide for a wider degree of exemption than the individual conscientious objector himself requires. I think that argument is quite sound. But I fancy that the hon. Gentlemen opposite had something else in mind and that the danger to be avoided here is that involved in some tribunals making a kind of bargain with the applicant. I think it is that kind of bargain which it is sought to avoid. A tribunal might say, "We are not sure that this man who applies for absolute exemption is as genuine as he makes out. On the other hand, we are not satisfied that there is not something genuine in his application. Let us strike a middle course, and give him something which he does not want anyhow. He claims absolute exemption. We cannot admit that, but we will not deprive him of everything. We will give him a conditional exemption." It is out of that sort of thing that one ultimately gets the majority of "cat-and-mouse" cases, with which I am hoping to deal in a later Clause, where some measure of exemption has been granted not satisfactory to the applicant.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: It is not a case of a man who seeks to be registered as a conscientious objector and fails to establish his claim. The tribunal ought to make up its mind whether he is genuine or not, but many do not. The real issue is that in peacetime the State says that there are priorities in industry.

Mr. Silverman: I do not think that that point is involved, but, of course, if the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to make it, he should be allowed to do so. My point is that if the tribunal comes to a decision which is not satisfactory to the man concerned, it may result in his being imprisoned, released, further trials, further courts-martial, and further sentences. I do not think that this new Clause would meet that type of case.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: This House has a very great tradition of being extremely careful in its consideration of all cases of conscience. I think it right that that position should be upheld. Therefore, I should like to be clear about the issue raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. At present, I am not at all clear. Whether we agree with the point of view or not, this House has always very wisely admitted the sincerity of conscientious objection in wartime. Therefore, very rightly and wisely, it has never compelled a conscientious objector to fight. There are some people who carry their objections so far that they cannot in time of war, do any form of national service because they consider that that would be contributing to the conduct of the war. Most of us would find it a little difficult to defend that position, but we all recognise the sincerity of that view as held by some people, and, therefore, the law has allowed for it. But I cannot quite follow the point of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) that it is worse to make people do this alternative service in time of peace than in time of war. The case seems to be exactly the opposite. One can understand a person who has such an extreme abhorrence of war that he objects to doing agricultural labour in time of war because, somehow or other, it contributes to the prosecution of the war, but I cannot see how anybody can object to doing any other form of national service on conscientious grounds in peacetime, when it merely contributes to the general welfare of the community and not to this wicked thing, the prosecution of war.

Mr. S. Silverman: In the 1914–18 war there was a class of men who while perfectly willing and anxious, as an act of voluntary service, to do all kinds of things, whether or not these were useful to the war effort, were, nevertheless, not willing to bargain with the tribunal for exemption from military service. Therefore, they refused every kind of condition on that ground

Mr. Hollis: I appreciate there were such people, but I was not passing judgment on anybody's point of view I was contrasting the situation in time of war and the situation in peacetime. It is not the same thing at all During the

war one would be contributing to the prosecution of the war, and some people felt that sincerely. During peacetime, one would be contributing to the general welfare of the community, and I cannot understand how anybody can think that is very wicked. I appreciate the further point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman about direction of labour being undesirable. Of course, direction of labour is undesirable Conscription, in itself, is undesirable; we all agree on that. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a situation where we have reached the conclusion that we cannot avoid it, and the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot argue that these people are being put in an exceptionally unfavourable position. They are put in an exceptionally favourable position, if they are allowed to continue with their university studies, or whatever it is convenient for them to do, at a time when all their contemporaries are in the Army. It is to that point of conscience that I would like hon. Members to direct their minds, because I do not think the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen has established his point

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I believe this new Clause, in support of which the Liberal Party have turned up in their massed battalions today—as opposed to their attitude on the Finance Bill when they indulged in absenteeism in a very high degree—provides another example of how this unfortunate remnant of a party is steadily dividing itself and Liberal opinion in the country. I think it is a very sorry thing that they should turn up in such force today to plead for a Clause such as this. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has just said, there is the greatest distinction between wartime and peacetime, and that was recognised by the mover and seconder of the new Clause
Like many hon. Members, I have a son who will be affected by the Bill by the time it becomes law. Incidentally, it might be of interest to hon. Members on the Government benches to know that my son practically insisted on the period of 18 months, and will be really disappointed if he has to do only 12 months' service, because he thinks that is not enough time in which to become a good soldier. It seems that we, as a House, have decided to take over the lives and activities of boys


of 18 years of age, in preparation for the self-preservation of the country. If a young man is a conscientious objector and is absolutely honourable in that belief, surely he should insist that because his conscience will not allow him to train for the Army, he should make his sacrifice equal to that of the boys in uniform. If he did not, he would not be worth this mass movement of the Liberal Party. He should say, "Since I cannot even in peacetime, without taking blood"—be cause there is no bloodshed involved—"put on a uniform, I offer to go into any service which is of use to the country." The conscientious objector who would not do that would not be worth fighting for.

Mr. Charles Williams: I do not know that it will be necessary for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) on the subject of the mass movement, because that hardly seems to be a matter which requires any deep consideration by this House. However, I do express some surprise at the fact that hon. Members below the Gangway have moved this Clause. I understood that there was fairly common agreement in this House that if we are to support the United Nations organisation, it is necessary that we should be reasonably strong.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly address himself to the proposed Clause?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was endeavouring to make the point that even if one objects to war on the ground that it is wrong, surely it is not wrong to try to stop war by offering one's services to the country in time of peace, or by having one's services taken by the country in time of peace. That would seem to me to have something to do with the new Clause, and I am sorry if I did not put the point sufficiently clearly. It seems to me to be rather vital when dealing with this matter of conscientious objectors.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member has not read the new Clause. The main point is whether conscientious objectors should be registered for other duties, and not for service in the Armed Forces.

Mr. Williams: I have certainly read the new Clause. I wish to confine myself to

the point concerning the performance of other duties which is vital to the Clause. I take this point of view, which seems to be very strong. For a very long time, there have been certain societies, such as the Quakers, who, although they are not strictly able to take up military service, do everything they can to help in the medical service and in that sort of way. That would seem to me to be a very strong argument in support of the Government if there were a Division upon this new Clause. There is also a point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I should like it laid down clearly in this House—because I think there is almost universal consent upon it—that in a matter of this kind, we do not want anything in the nature of bargaining between the tribunal and the individual as to whether he should perform this or that service. That is something against which we all ought to stand. If only because that point has been raised, and has enabled some of us to express an opinion upon it, I think it has been worth while moving the Second Reading of this new Clause. Beyond that I am afraid I cannot find any particular reason why even hon. Members below the Gangway, should press it to a Division.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

The following new Clause stood upon the Order Paper:

(Hourly, etc., drills)

(1) The Service Authority may cause to be served on any person during his term of part-time service a notice which shall state that he is required to present himself for hourly periods of instruction or a continuous period of less than six days at such place and time on such days (of which the earliest shall not be earlier than the fifteenth day after the service of the notice), as may be specified in the notice.

(2) The Service Authority shall have power at any time to cancel such a notice and to vary it by issuing a supplementary notice provided that the earliest day for attendance under the supplementary notice shall be not earlier than the fifteenth day after the service of the notice.

(3) No hourly period of instruction nor day's training shall be reckoned towards the completion of any person's part-time service under Section two of this Act unless it has been detailed in a notice under this Section or in a training notice or carried out as part of part-time service with the consent of the Service Authority.

(4) The Service Authority may, if any person without leave lawfully granted or sickness or


other reasonable cause fails to present himself as required by a notice or supplementary notice under this Section declare some or all of the hourly periods of instruction which such person has previously undergone under that notice or supplementary notice void and such hourly periods of instruction shall not be reckoned towards the completion of that previous part-time service under Section two of this Act.—[Brigadier Low.]

Mr. Speaker: The proposed Clause (Hourly, etc., drills) in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) can be discussed together with the new Clause (Drills) which I am now about to call.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Drills.)

(1) The Service Authority may cause to be served on any person during his term of part-time service a notice which shall state that he is required to present himself for periods of instruction at such place and time on such days (of which the earliest shall not be earlier than the fifteenth day after the service of the notice), as may be specified in the notice.

(2) A person who without leave lawfully granted, or sickness or other reasonable excuse, fails to present himself as required by a notice served under this Section shall be liable to forfeit to His Majesty a sum of money not exceeding five pounds recoverable on complaint to a court of summary jurisdiction.—[Brigadier Head.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Brigadier Head: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause seeks to make good two omissions from the Bill and I should like to deal with the two relevant Subsections in turn. Subsection (1) seeks to make good the omission of any regulation for the notices being served for periods of not less than six days. Clause 6 of the Bill contains the whole machinery for serving these notices, which is defined as a period of not less than six days for the camps, but there is no reference to periods for what were normally called, before the war, the territorial drills. We feel it is essential that some machinery should be included in the Bill, so that notices can be served, and so that the machinery for their serving is contained in the Bill.
In our opinion Subsection (2) of the new Clause is more important, and constitutes a matter which my hon. Friends and myself think will have the strongest effect on the success or failure of the whole of this scheme. It concerns the omission from the Bill of any sanction which can be put upon men who do not

attend these drills. I do not think there will be any strong argument against the assertion that that omission occurs. It will be within the recollection of many hon. Members who sat up very late one night, how we watched the frenzied searchings of the right hon. Gentleman and the learned Attorney-General to see where this sanction could be found. I think I should also be right in saying that none of my hon. Friends is wedded to the proposal contained in the new Clause. Obviously, it is difficult to arrive at an entirely satisfactory form of sanction.
It seems obvious that the temptations for absenteeism will be very strong, and that the inconvenience of a lot of absenteeism will be very considerable and might, if it reached serious proportions, almost serve to wreck the scheme. Although a really firm sanction is required it does not, of course, want to be a very savage one. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has come to the House with some solution of this problem, and it may be that his solution is superior to the method suggested in Subsection (2) of our new Clause. The one thing we wish to get at is, that a definite sanction should exist; that it should be a practical one, and that it should discourage men from continued and frequent absence, which will stultify so much of the part-time training which will depend, to a very large extent, on good attendance and on maintaining continuity in performing these drills.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I beg to second the Motion.
I very much hope we shall have a Service Minister speaking on this, perhaps in addition to the Attorney-General, because it is not simply a legal question; it raises a matter of the very greatest importance to the success of the whole of this scheme. In the past we have not had any experience of what might be described as compulsory volunteers. The men about whom we are now thinking are men who are made to serve in a volunteer organisation. In the Territorial Army before the war there were sanctions; men were under military law when they were at camp, and there was always the question of a possible fine if they did not perform their minimum number of drills. Of course, in fact in any


decent Territorial unit—indeed, in almost all territorial units—these sanctions were never applied, and it would have been fatal to a unit to have applied them. I know from my own experience, as a Territorial officer before the war, we never had any trouble of this sort.
At the beginning of the war, in the company I commanded, we had no conscripts serving with us for the first four months, and not a single man came up on a charge; they were all volunteers, they worked very hard and their behaviour was perfect. When we got the conscripts coming in, they were perfectly good soldiers—probably just as good as the Territorials—but they were not volunteers, and they did the things which soldiers are apt to do, such as overstaying their leave, which could not be overlooked. In a mixed unit there are bound to be people who will not turn up, because they are conscripts and not volunteers. There will have to be some form of sanction, and unless that sanction is clear, and unless that sanction is applied reasonably, the whole scheme will break down. That is the reason I was worried when this was discussed in the small hours of the morning the other day. It did not appear that the Minister had really thought seriously on this particular point. Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), I am not particularly enamoured of this new Clause. It is excessively difficult to know what is the right thing. I hope we shall get, not a purely legal answer but one from the point of view of the Minister who is trying to make the scheme work.

Brigadier Low: It might be for the convenience of the House if I said a few words before the Attorney-General replies, because the new Clause standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) and myself (Hourly, etc., drills), is also being discussed. I should like to take up a little time in explaining a little more fully than has been done so far what is at the backs of our minds. I say at once, that I agree with what the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) has just said about volunteers and conscripts, and about his experience when they mingled at the beginning of the war. Anyone who was in the same position of my hon. Friend and myself, will

confirm that that was the general experience.
Whereas before the war we were satisfied—I think wrongly satisfied—with allowing Territorials, to take them as an example of volunteers in the Auxiliary Forces, to choose the days on which they should do their drills, they were doing drills over a much longer period than that which these conscripts, the National Service men, will be required to put in. In fact they were doing over twice as long per year. Before the war they put in that long time, but we were not satisfied with the efficiency produced. I think my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, in our various Amendments, both have at the backs of our minds the thought that if training is to be of any use for part-time service it should be planned and not unplanned training. Surely, that argument should appeal to hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who are so wedded to planning in other matters? One matter on which we on this side of the House do require planning, at any rate in this Bill, is that of training.
During the dark watches of the night, some time back, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) told us of the dangers of happy-go-lucky methods of training, and, besides drawing some laughter from the House, he did impress even right hon. Members opposite, sleepy and bewildered though they may have been. The scheme we have in mind consists of a notice procedure and a sanction. The point of principle in which the House is interested is really the sanction, but before I come to that I should like to say one word about the notice procedure. Under the new Clause which we are considering at the moment, the notice procedure is designed to cover periods of instruction. I think we have elsewhere in the Bill, or will have when we come to complete our consideration of it, provision for training notices covering periods in excess of six days. If the Government are going to accept the principle that we put forward, a notice under this new Clause, or whatever Clause is put in substitution of it, must cover anything under six days, and in my new Clause, which I will move if it is necessary, provision is made to cover all periods of less than six days, as well as hourly periods of instruction. I also


think it necessary, and I hope the House will agree, that provision should be made to enable the Service authority to vary the notice; and I think that the notice procedure which is adopted for longer periods of service should apply to this notice procedure, too.
Let me pass to the sanction. I was very glad to hear my hon. and gallant Friend say he was not wedded to the principle of the £5 fine. I think that in thinking over this matter of the sanction—and most of us agree that a sanction would be desirable, if we could find one against which there were not too many disadvantages—all hon. and gallant Gentlemen will realise the difficulty in reaching a satisfactory solution. Speaking for myself and, I believe, for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea, I would say that we feel that the £5 penalty procedure has too many disadvantages. We do not like the idea that men could be allowed, as it were, to buy themselves out of the results of having missed a period for which they were summoned. We do not think that young soldiers, sailors or airmen should be allowed to get any advantage so to make good their absence by merely paying a penalty. Therefore, we have looked round to see what other sanction we could find; and, bearing in mind that the object of part-time service is to train a man as efficiently as he can be trained, we think that, if a sanction is required, that sanction should be to deprive him of being able to count a number—perhaps, not many—of the hourly periods of instruction which have formed part of the training programme, with which he has been summoned, in the notice which he has disobeyed For that reason we have put forward the fourth Subsection in the Clause standing in my name
I have no doubt the Government, too, have given full attention to this matter, and all I would ask is that, if they cannot accept my sanction, or the sanction proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) they will indicate to us what sanction they are going to put in its place. 1 do ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, or the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, to give the House this time what they did not last time—some account of the scheme by which the national service

men are to be allowed to satisfy part of their liability part-time service by hourly drills or periods of less than six days.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): We have given the most careful and, in many ways, sympathetic consideration to the two new Clauses that have been put down by hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite, as, indeed, to any Amendment which is put down from either side of the House; but we are satisfied that these proposals are neither necessary nor practicable. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) has observed, we have already put on the Paper an Amendment which will define what is meant by a training notice for the purposes of Clause 6 of the Bill, and that definition will, as I promised when we were discussing the matter in Committee, make it clear, if, indeed, it is not clear already in the Bill as at present framed, that a training notice will relate only to periods of service of some duration—periods longer than hourly drills, namely, periods of six days or more.
A training notice will normally relate to the annual camp, will be served only once in the course of the year; and it will only be in the case where a man fails to comply with the training notice calling him up for a period of some duration of that kind that he will be liable to the penalties imposed under the existing law in the case of the particular Force to which the man has been allocated who fails to obey a call up or embodiment notice. It will be seen by hon. Members from that, that the training notice will not be issued at all in respect either of the hourly drills or in respect of the weekend camps, and, consequently, that absence from an hourly drill or from a weekend camp would not constitute desertion, and would not be punishable in the way that failure to comply with a training notice would be punishable. The position in regard to these short periods of service, which was, I think, fully explained to the Committee on the previous occasion—

Brigadier Low: No.

The Attorney-General: No doubt, owing to the comatose condition of hon. Members opposite on that occasion it was not sufficiently apparent to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I make quite clear now the


position in regard to the short periods of service. Under Clause 2 of the Bill there is, as hon. Members know, a limit of 21 days on the amount of training which may be required from a National Service man in the course of any one year of his part-time obligation. A substantial part of the 21 days will, of course, be required to be served in continuous training in the annual camp, or training of that kind, training which he undergoes pursuant to a training notice; and if the liability had not already been partially discharged—I mean the liability to do the complete 21 days had not been partially discharged—by doing hourly drills, or by training at a weekend camp, a training notice for the full period of 21 days could, of course, be served.
It is intended, however, to make regulations under Clause 2 (4) providing that an individual may, by carrying out a specified number of hourly drills, or by attending a weekend camp—weekend camps will count as eight hourly drills—count those drills against his liability to serve for the 21 days; and it is intended that four training periods—four hourly drills—shall count as one day against a total liability to serve for 21 days. In our view, it is undesirable, and certainly impracticable, to observe any very strict or formal rules in regard to the length of notice which has to be given to a man in respect of the hourly drills These things will be matters of arrangement in each unit. The intention is to arrange this part of the part-time training for the National Service men in exactly the same way as it is done for other men in the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces. In the Territorial Army the volunteers and the conscripted personnel will be trained side by side. Matters will be arranged in regard to the dates, the times, and so on, of the hourly drills in each unit to meet, as far as may be, the convenience of all concerned. It would be manifestly impracticable and unfair that a man who had been asked, perhaps at comparatively short notice, to attend for an evening drill in order, perhaps, to make up a gun team or a searchlight team and who had turned up and performed his drill, should not be allowed to count that against his 21 days, but under the new Clause in the name of the hon and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low), because that was a period which had not been served pursuant to a 15

days' notice, the man would not be allowed to count it to his credit.

5.0 p.m.

Brigadier Low: There is a provision that h shall count if it is done with the consent of the Service authority as part-time service. The example which the Attorney-General gave would be covered.

The Attorney-General: I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that explanation, but it does not in any way alter our view that it would be impracticable, where one was providing for hourly drills, which might take place on a Thursday in one week and, because of some local holiday—a football match or some other thing—an arrangement might be made the following week for it to take place on a Wednesday, to provide for 15 days' notice always to be given in writing to each individual in advance of the drill being held. Regulations will be made with regard to these periods of hourly drill, and adequate and proper notice will certainly be given, but we cannot tie ourselves down by Statute to give 15 days' notice in every case.
I come now to the question of the sanction by which attendance at the drills and the weekend camps, as opposed to attendance pursuant to a training notice, will be secured. The real sanction—and when I say "real sanction" I mean what we anticipate will be the effective sanction—is very much that which the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool has in mind, as opposed to the quite different sanction which the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) and the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) would like to see. It is a sanction which, in fact, exists. I hope that in this matter we shall be able to satisfy all hon. Members. There is the penalty to which I referred in Committee. There is also the penalty which we think in practice will be, as it has been in the past, much the more effective penalty, that if a man fails, without reasonable excuse, to complete the full course of hourly drills, where for instance he has been given the opportunity of commuting six days of whole-time service by attending 24 evening drills, and where, without reasonable excuse, he fails to complete the whole course of hourly drills in that way, he will not be entitled to exemption from the liability to serve the six days' period. If, on the


other hand, he has a good excuse, that he was ill on the night in question or that something unexpected prevented him from turning up, he will be allowed credit for the drills he has actually performed.
That is, in a sense, an administrative sanction, but in practice we think it is likely to be the more effective sanction, and we do not contemplate that there will be a constant necessity to issue summonses, go to the police courts and to get men fined £5; but if it is a matter of any consolation to the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton and the hon. Member for Flint, there is still a legal sanction in the background. I informed hon. Members in Committee, speaking, I confess, "off the book," that when a man does not turn up for a drill in circumstances of this kind when he has been ordered to attend, there was a small penalty, which I thought was £5. This seemed to create some despondency or amusement—I was not quite sure which—on the part of hon. Members opposite, and, consequently, I used a good deal of midnight oil to find out whether or not the information I had given was correct, and I found to my relief that the position was exactly as I had said. In the case of the Territorial Army, the Auxiliary Air Force and the Air Force Reserve, the penalty is a maximum fine of £5 The Army Reserve, the Naval Reserve and the Naval Special Reserve apparently think in rather higher figures and there the maximum penalty is £25 Therefore, in these cases where a man is required to perform hourly drills and fails to comply with this requirement, there is a legal sanction in the background.

Brigadier Low: Under what regulations is that provided?

The Attorney-General: It is not under Regulations. If hon. Members will look at Section 21 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, Section 15 of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, and at the Auxiliary Air Force Order, 1924, they will find the relevant statutory provisions in this regard.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does the imposition of the sanction and the fine wipe out the offence?

The Attorney-General: In no way. That is why we think the really effective sanction will be that a man who fails to complete his course of drills will fail to

be relieved from his obligation to do the full-time service. We think that is likely to be the effective sanction in all these cases.

Mr. Baxter: He will not be able to buy himself out?

The Attorney-General: No; there is no question of that. As the hon. Member for Flint said, it has been found in practice in the Territorial Army that it is neither desirable nor really practicable to pursue the legal sanction in the court and recover these penalties. In bad cases it might have to be done, but in the ordinary way the administrative sanction is the one that will ensure that men do, in general, comply with the requirement to perform their weekly drills. Having regard to the fact that both the sanction which the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool and the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) desire, and the sanction desired by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton and the hon. Member for Flint, will be provided, and in view of the explanation I have given of the arrangements that will be made for this commutation of the fulltime liability by part-time hourly service, I hope hon. Members opposite will feel able to withdraw the new Clause.

Mr. Stanley: The Attorney-General said that hon. Members on this side were in a comatose condition when this point was discussed in Committee. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he is quite wrong. It is true that, during some short period in the many hours we sat on the Committee stage, some of us no doubt felt drowsy, but none of us felt drowsy for one moment while we were discussing this particular Amendment. Many of us are deprived by the hours of work of this House from anything like the constant visas to see the Crazy Gang which we should like, and the performance of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite was the nearest thing to the Crazy Gang that any of us have been able to see for some months. On the other hand, I do plead guilty to the charge made against us that the Debate on this Amendment filled us with despondency. We were not so despondent at the learned Attorney-General's statement with regard to the £5 sanction; we did not question whether he was right or wrong,


though we are now happy that for once he should have got the thing looked up by somebody else and found that he was right. What we were despondent about was the fact that, whoever was right or wrong, the Secretary of State for War and the Attorney-General, speaking within a few minutes of each other, have made entirely contradictory statements, and our gratification at the proved correctness of the Attorney-General is slightly tempered by disappointment about the statement of the Secretary of State for War.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in dealing with these new Clauses, has, T think, rather missed the point which was in the minds of my hon. and gallant Friends who have put them down, and which has been expressed in the speeches of the hon. and gallant Members. What we are above all anxious about is whether there is any method possible under this Bill whereby people can be made not only to do the actual number of days' or hours' training which the Bill lays clown, but can be made to do it more or less at the times required, so that they will have a planned training. I was left in doubt by the Attorney-General's statement as to whether the regulations to which he referred would in fact be adequate to secure the purpose we have in mind, and with which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence has no quarrel, because it is quite clear that part time training will be valuable or useless not merely in accordance with the number of hours served but in accordance with some plan of training and education which is laid down from the start. As far as I could follow the Attorney-General's argument, it was that under Subsection (4) of Clause 2, the regulations which permit of converting the days into hourly periods would lay down certain rules which would have to be observed if the change from days into hours was to count. From my point of view, however, I am afraid he did not give sufficient details of the way these regulations would work to convince me that in fact they would meet our point. I can quite see that if the regulations are to lay down that a man can only count his hourly training to make up the days if he does so many hours in January, so many in February, so many in March—so that there is a planned, forced attendance and a plan of instruction leading up to the yearly camp—and that if he does

not carry out these precise instructions under the regulations he is not able to count these drills towards making up his training—

The Attorney-General: I had intended to make that absolutely plain, and I thought I had done so. The position will certainly be that if a man does not do the drills as and when required, to commute the particular number of days he seeks or is permitted to commute, he will be liable to the double sanction that he will not escape liability to do the full period of 21 days whole time training and the more remote sanction that a monetary penalty may he imposed upon him.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I thank the Attorney-General, and I would like to ask him one more question. He said "as and when required." How will he be required? Will the regulations lay down the drills he will have to attend, spread over the whole five years?

The Attorney-General: I apprehend that the regulations will not lay that down. The regulations will necessarily differ in the case of each Service and each unit, but they will give a power to each Service to require particular men in particular units to turn up at a regular and organised course of drills. It may be every day in a particular week or every day in a particular month, whatever seems to be practicable for the unit concerned. They will not leave a man with a choke of saying, "I will not turn up in May or June but I will put in all my drills in July." There will be some provision to secure regular attendance, so that the training given at the drills may be systematic.

Mr. Stanley: That explanation from the Attorney-General relieves a good deal of my fears. My fear was that a man would be able to choose, that the regulations would lay down of course the number of drills he had to do to make up the days, but would leave him at complete liberty to choose when he did them. That is what appeared from the previous discussions. Of course that left it open to a man to do the whole of the drills, say, in the last year, and would have made complete nonsense of any form of training programme. I understand now, however, that without laying down complete details the regulations made under Subsection (4) will in


fact specify that the hourly drills will not count towards making up the day unless they are carried out at times—not perhaps exact times, but in periods laid down and required of the soldier.

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General indicated assent.

Mr. Stanley: Then, if he does not carry out the drills at the required time he does not get the benefit of this Subsection at all, and even the hours he has already served will not count towards making up the necessary number of days?

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General indicated assent.

Mr. Stanley: Presumably, then, he can get a training notice to make him serve a number of days' training and the ordinary, normal sanctions would apply to that. No doubt some of my hon. Friends will want to ask more questions to get this absolutely precise, but personally I feel that that statement as to the sort of thing the regulations under Subsection (4) will contain removes a good deal of my apprehension. I can comprehend that if the regulations are full enough, that will to a large extent meet the point of view I have held.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Who is responsible for the efficiency of the training? Are we to assume that the departmental Service Ministers accept responsibility, or does it devolve on the Minister of Defence? I put that question for two reasons. I think everybody will appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General said, that it is far better not to exercise any sanctions at all, but that surely involves a responsibility on the Service Departments to provide adequate training facilities. At the present moment they are not there, and there does not seem to be much chance of these training camps being set up.
The Attorney-General has talked about weekend camps and six-day camps. If he went to any Territorial Association he would discover that there are no facilities at all for such training. If the Minister of Defence will give the House the assurance that he will see to it that there is, in every county, a standing camp to which men can go and do training, where they will have proper accommodation and proper catering, I believe that not only would the men welcome it, but, quite apart from any sanctions, they would want

to make themselves efficient and would go to such camps. At the present moment, however, they do not exist. If in every county there could be for instance an existing airfield set aside as a standing camp, not only for the men called up for the Army but for the Air Force, where permanent staff instructors could be accommodated, with cover where training could be carried out in inclement weather, and where the weapons with which the men have to train could be provided, it would be very useful. At present it is impossible for a Territorial Association to know whether there is transportation for the men to the camps to train for the units to which they are attached. It makes sheer nonsense of training for a gunner, for instance, to do drill for an infantry unit.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member is going far beyond the terms of the proposed Clause.

Sir R. Glyn: If we are to have a discussion on whether drills are to be converted into days surely it is important to know whether there are camps into which the men may go for their training.

Mr. Paget: There will be plenty of scope within the regulations for training to say that if a man does not take the system of training, he should not have any of his time excused. That would appear to be a better sanction than has been proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head). A further point is that a bench of magistrates may consist of two conscientious objectors and two old women, and that definitely would not be a suitable instrument for enforcing these provisions. There is still another point as to which I am in a good deal of doubt. What is the power to enforce order during these periods of training? I am not too happy about it. What is to happen to the man who goes along and plays the giddy goat?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That question does not arise, either.

Mr. Paget: With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I suggest that it does. When we are considering the sanctions which are applicable, it is important that that matter should be considered.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The sanctions that the House is considering are those


arising in the event of a man failing to present himself, and not of a man misbehaving himself.

Mr. Paget: Is it not important when we are requiring a man to attend for training and bringing him under military law to say that if he does not turn up, he is absent without leave and can be punished for it? I understand that that is not the position. If the man is not brought under military law, what is the position when he is there? Can he turn up and put in an hour "blowing raspberries" at the sergeant instructor?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that if he were to follow the instructions of his right hon. and learned Friend and refer to the "Manual of Military Law" he would find there the answers to his questions. The hon. Member was a little unfair to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head). The suggestion of a £5 penalty did not come from my hon. and gallant Friend at all in the first place, but from the Attorney-General, who said, in the course of the Committee stage, that there was a £5 penalty for nonattendance at drill. In repeating that statement today he was basing it upon Section 21 of the Act of 1907. The Attorney-General was wrong in one respect. Under that Section, there can be a fine of £5 for not doing the required number of drills but not for nonattendance at a particular drill. I think that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will read the proposed new Clause again, he will have to concede the point.
I agree that the point which has been put is thoroughly bad. The proposed Clause raises points of great importance. I am very glad that we have had a clearer statement from the benches opposite than we were able to get in the early hours of the morning recently. The Minister of Defence said that there should be sanctions. We agree, but in that he differs from his colleague the Secretary of State for War, who spoke about an amicable arrangement for turning up at the drill.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): My statement has been taken out of its context. What I wanted to say was that there was no real penalty. The £5 sanction mentioned by the hon. Mem-

ber was utilised before the war, but I do not think it will be used in the future.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have read through HANSARD and I thought that the words of the right hon. Gentleman were quite clear. I do not want to go into the question at length or to enter into any dispute which may exist among Members of the Front Bench opposite. If a man does not present himself for parades where required to make up the 21 days in each year, he will be liable to be called up under a training notice to complete his service. How is this to work out in practice? We do not know what camps there are going to be. Suppose it should be decided that there is to be a six months' camp for each individual. That takes 42 days out of his 60, leaving a balance of 18, which, presumably, will be spread evenly over the other period. If a man fails in the first year to do the required number of days' training, or if he fails in the second year to do so, and he has to be called up in the third year for his training, how are we to work that out? We could serve upon him a training notice for a period less than six days, but as he will not be liable to do more than 4½ days I am puzzled how the regulation will be operated. I hope that I have got it right. It was a little hard to follow when the Attorney-General was dealing with it, because of his continual reference to the £5 penalty. I am inclined to agree that the question of the £5 is of small moment. What we want to see is an efficient system whereby men come to the right place at the right time to get the full benefit of their training, and unless we can provide some machinery, part-time training is not likely to prove of much value.

Mr. Paget: The hon. and learned Member referred me to the "Manual of Military Law." I wonder to which section he was referring. I can find nothing which provides power to discipline a man when he is not embodied.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. and learned Member is quite wrong in thinking that the Territorial is subject to military law only when embodied. He is subject to military law when serving with any military forces. The hon. and learned Member will find the matter dealt with in the Territorial Army regulations, but I do not undertake to advise him on law.

Mr. Paget: Is the hon. and learned Member certain?

Brigadier Peto: What we are all trying to get is planned training for the Territorial conscript. Whether sanctions are or are not in existence, it is quite obvious that some form of sanction must be included in the Bill, if everyone is to understand what we are trying to do and how we are trying to do it. I should like to hear a word from one of the Service Ministers, and preferably from the Secretary of State for War, who has said very little so far, who has been defended gallantly by the Attorney-General. I should like to hear what he proposes to do about planned training for these conscripts. I suggest that if there are sanctions, as I fully appreciate there are, they should appear in the Bill so that we shall all understand them.

The Attorney-General: I speak again by leave of the House. Regulations will not in themselves provide the exact extent to which the 60 days' total liability may be commuted by hourly drills. That will vary in different units and with different personnel. What the regulations will do is to provide, in the case of different units and, possibly, in the case of different personnel, that provision may be made, by orders, for liability to 15 days' camp in every year, with the remaining six days commuted to 24-hour drills; in another unit there might be 10 days' camp with the remainder of the time being devoted to weekend drills. It must be left to the discretion of those in command of particular units.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Attorney-General speaks of the "remaining six days," but suppose five days remain—a training notice could not be served in that case?

The Attorney-General: In the event of that unlikely situation arising, one would fall back on the legal penalty. It is not likely to arise, because the regulations will provide in advance for a period of annual camp and for a period of hourly part-time training. The hourly training will commence earlier in the year than the

camp, and if a man fails to comply with his obligations without reasonable excuse, he will get a new training notice. The hon. and learned Member's point concerned the end of the six-year period, when there might be an outstanding liability of five days. In that case one would have to fall back, if it were thought worth while—and it would be one case in hundreds of thousands—on the legal sanction. Section 21 provides that for the case of a man who fails to appear at the time and at the place appointed for preliminary training or for annual training, or who fails to attend the number of drills and to fulfil the other conditions. "Annual training" is the annual camp, and "preliminary training" is the hourly training. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In my view it is. It is perfectly clear that it includes hourly training, and it cannot contemplate anything else. In other words, it means: "You must turn up at 6 o'clock at Carshalton Drill Hall on Thursday, and if you do not, there is this penalty." In any case, it is not likely to operate, because, as the hon. and learned Member has said, the real penalty is the administrative one.

Major Legge-Bourke: I add my plea to that of my hon. and gallant Friends, that some words of the kind proposed should be incorporated in the Bill. As one who has spent many hours going through the "Manual of Military Law," as amended at various stages, I can say that it will make the lot of a commanding officer exceedingly unhappy unless definite standards are set down in the Bill. It seems to me that Clause 2 (4), which the Attorney-General has quoted in reply to these two Amendments, is extremely tightly worded. I hope that it will be stated categorically and in a convenient form for commanding officers who have to administer the regulations to which the Attorney-General has referred.

Brigadier Head: I thank the Attorney-General for his assurance, and in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Cotton (Centralised Buying) Act, 1947.
2. National Health Service (Scot-land) Act, 1947.
3. Cotton Industry War Memorial Trust Act, 1947.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE BILL

As amended, again considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Deferment for apprentices and students.)

If the Minister is satisfied in regard to any person liable to be called up for service under this Act that, on the date on which he becomes so liable, he is serving an apprenticeship or receiving full-time education in a university, school or other institution, or that he will within one year from the said date be so receiving education, the Minister shall, if so requested by that person, direct that he may be called up at a date not later than six months after the completion of such apprenticeship or education; and accordingly Section one of this Act shall, in relation to that person, have effect as if for the reference therein to the age of twenty-six years there were substituted a reference to an age being the sum of twenty-six years and the period after such person became liable to be called up under this Act and before he was so called up.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to put into the Bill a statutory right for apprentices and students to be permitted to conclude their apprenticeship or period of education before doing their military service, if they so desire. The House will recollect that a number of Members on this side pressed this point so long ago as the Second Reading, and that on the Committee stage there was considerable discussion on an Amendment to the then Clause 16, which now stands in the Bill as Clause 17. I would remind hon. Members that the attempt made in the Opposition Amendment on the Committee stage to put this

statutory provision into the Bill was not resisted on its merits, but solely upon certain technical aspects of the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who bore the major part of that particular battle, will recollect that, on a number of occasions, he attempted to convince hon. Members on this side of the House that, from the machinery point of view, the Amendment would not work.
I do not think that I shall be challenged when I say that the merits of the proposal were not seriously challenged from any quarter of the Committee. It would have been surprising had they been, since, as long ago as the Second Reading, the Minister of Labour—reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 31st March, col. 1684—made it abundantly clear that it was the intention of the Government that such persons should be entitled to apply for a delay in the doing of their service. The Debate on the Amendment on the Committee stage concluded with an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour—who will find that undertaking in col. 860—to look at the Clause in question to see whether something could be done. No Amendment has been tabled by the Government to deal with this point, and, as my right hon. Friends and hon. Members feel very strongly on this matter, we have now tabled the present new Clause which, in our submission, not only does what most hon. Members want to do—to put this provision into the Bill—but does so in a manner to which no objection could be taken, on the grounds of machinery.
The new Clause will contain a provision relating to deferment, subject to one important qualification. This was done to meet the Parliamentary Secretary's objection that the previous proposal for postponement could not work because it involved bringing in the hardship committees. Deferment involves administrative action by his Department and no more. Accepting the advice which the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to tender to the Committee on the previous stage of the Bill, we have now put this proposal forward on the basis of deferment; but we have made one qualification. The Parliamentary Secretary made it clear that cases of deferment might involve not merely a delay in the doing of military service by the person deferred, but might involve a situation


in which that person did not do his service at all, or, alternatively, did a shorter period than other people. It seems to us objectionable that persons who are to obtain the advantage of completing their education or apprenticeship without interruption should also gain the advantage—if it is an advantage—of doing less service than other people. Therefore, we have inserted in this new Clause a provision that, although these people will obtain deferment, it will be deferment shorn of that harmful aspect, and we have made it clear that the people so deferred will not, by reason of that deferment, do any less service than anyone else.
The House will recollect that the objection was made—I think under misapprehension—by hon. Members opposite to our proposals on the grounds that they would tend to establish a privileged class. It is very far from our intention to establish a privileged class, and that is why we have gone to the trouble of inserting the concluding three or four lines in the Clause, which will prevent any possibility of any person benefiting by being absolved from liability to any part of his service. So much for the technicalities. The new Clause surmounts the technical difficulties, and I would urge on the House the broad merits of the proposals
There is no dispute in any quarter of the House that it is desirable that the military service which we are asked to impose under this Bill shall cause as little interruption as possible to apprenticeship and education. If that is so, it is surely proper not to rely upon the discretion, however well exercised, of the Minister of Labour; it is surely essential to put it in the Bill It is essential for two reasons—one a practical reason and the other a psychological reason. The practical reason is that Ministerial discretion could be exercised in a variety of ways, and with perfectly genuine intentions, but could, nevertheless, be nibbled away by Ministerial action. By putting this in the Bill, there will be rights under Act of Parliament, which can be vindicated if necessary in the courts.
Then there is the psychological aspect. We are imposing a very serious sacrifice on an entire generation, and it is desirable that that burden should be as light as is consistent with the interests of national security. It would convince a great many

of these young people that we were attempting to do that, if we put into the Bill this provision for their benefit. It would help also those who have to plan the careers and education of the young, in that they would know that, in planning those careers, they could rely on statutory provisions to whose benefit they were en-titled as a matter of absolute right. I therefore urge on the House that it is extremely desirable that some statutory provision should be made. If hon. Members accept that proposition, as I think a good many hon. Members do, then, in the absence of any other statutory provision being put forward on behalf of the Government, as in my opinion it should have been, ours is the only one for the consideration of the House.
I do not know what attitude the Government intend to take to this Clause. I do not know whether they will object to it on technicalities or on its merits, but if the objection is on technicalities then hon. Members have something of a grievance against the Government. The view of the majority of the hon. Members in Committee as to the desirability of some such provision was made abundantly clear. The Government obviously have technical resources of draftsmanship not available to hon. Members generally, and if the Government's only objection to the previous proposal was a purely technical one, they should not have opposed the obviously clear views of the House that they themselves should put forward an administratively workable proposal at this stage. The fact that they have not done so has compelled us to put this Clause on the Order Paper.
I ask the Government to face up to this matter as one which concerns the serious principle that education and apprenticeship are valuable things which people are entitled to have safeguarded by Parliament. I hope that if the Government are not prepared to accept this Clause or offer any explanation of their own failure to put forward a similar one, they will at least face the issue and attempt to put before the House their views as to why these vital interests of apprenticeship and education should be neglected.

6.0 p.m.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to second the Motion.
In so doing, I feel that we should recall the Debate which we had on this matter


during the Committee stage. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke at considerable length on the question of deferment and postponement as they affected the age limit of 26, and I regret to say that there were some of us who, even at the end of that lucid explanation, were still confused in our minds as to what was the real intention of the Government. I can assure the Minister that there are also many people outside this House—the very students who are affected—who are equally still confused. As my hon. Friend has said, this affects the future of a very large number of the young people, and we feel strongly that a matter of this sort should not be left to Ministerial assurances because, after all, Ministers come and go and they are apt to change. It would be grossly unfair that with a change of Ministry in a year or two's time those regulations or assurances might be altered.
The Minister said that he would look into this matter again, and we rather hoped that there would be a new Clause introduced by the Government to cover the point. That has not been done and we have therefore tabled this new Clause. As my hon. Friend said, we do not set ourselves up as expert Parliamentary draftsmen, but I think that hon. Members will find that the Clause covers all the points which were discussed in the Debate and is a reasonable provision which will lay a statutory obligation on whatever Minister is in office.

Professor Gruffydd: I have been wondering what possible objections the Minister could have to this new Clause, although I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is very prolific in his objections, whether they are valid or not. One of the objections he made on the last occasion was that such a provision would give an advantage to the bad student who, if I may so put it euphemistically, deferred passing his examinations for a number of years and would therefore be over the age of liability by the time he had finished his scholastic career. The last lines of this new Clause deal with that point and make it quite impossible for such a person to take advantage of the fact that he is a dull student. I am afraid I do not know whether there is such a thing as a bad apprentice; I know there is in literature, of course.
I hope the Minister will view this Clause not only with sympathy, but with acquiescence, because it is necessary that students, in particular, should have something very definite to look forward to. University Members have had the experience of receiving many letters from their constituents stating that one kind of student was treated in a different way from another under exactly the same circumstances. The way in which they were treated differed from college to college and from university to university. One of the very worst things that could happen is that a feeling should arise among students that some have received favours which others have been denied. For that reason I hope the Minister will adopt, if not this Clause, something which will have the same object in view.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think it might be convenient if I intervened at this point, not with the intention of curtailing discussion, but in order to explain the Ministerial point of view. This matter has been discussed at very great length on two occasions when I think the ground was covered very fully and, I had hoped, to the general satisfaction of hon. Members. I think we were then all agreed as to the desirability of deferment for students and apprentices to enable them to complete either their studentship or their apprenticeship. The point is whether or not a person liable to National Service should have conferred upon him a statutory right of deferment. That is the question that is really involved in the argument that has been put forward.
I do not think that I should be doing justice to my case if I did not indicate to the House that the arrangement under which this has been done since 1939 has been on an administrative basis and nut a statutory basis. It has been done by the machinery of the Ministry of Labour and, by and large, there has been very little complaint. Paragraph 9 of the White Paper on the call-up of Forces for 1947–8 contained a complete statement et the arrangements for the deferment of apprentices and students. There has been no pressure at all to suggest that that should have been embodied in legislation. The House has been quite content with the White Paper statement covering the position for the next two years without any demand that it should be embodied in terms of legislation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is a distinction between the kind of system which we have to operate in wartime and during the immediate aftermath of war, and one which is justifiable in a full-scale system of peacetime conscription?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is some force in that argument, but I should have thought that in 1947–48 we were in a period where things were fairly well defined, and though I would agree immediately that the university position is extremely difficult, nevertheless it may well have eased considerably by 1949 as compared with today. I would ask the House to consider what the new Clause is intended to do. In the first place, the Minister must be satisfied that the person concerned is serving an apprenticeship or receiving full-time education in a university, school or other institution, or that he will within one year from the said date be so receiving education. It makes two definitions. One, with regard to the apprentice, is that the man must be serving an apprenticeship, but with regard to the student it says that he shall be a student or that he may be a student in 12 months' time. The same argument in connection with the student applies to the apprentice, and I was rather surprised that in a new Clause drafted with so much care there should have been this distinction.

Mr. Pickthorn: Surely there is a difference, for, as far as I know, there is no rigid limit to the possible number of apprentices in any given year as there is to the possible number of entrants to the universities, crammed as they are now. Therefore, we did not wish to give a definite number when we were not sure that there would be room for the number which we would have specified. That is the difference.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I can quite appreciate the position of the hon. Member, and I can assure him that though it was not his intention to do that, that is, in fact, what he has done. I know that it is probably done against his will and probably he is quite unconscious of it. It should be remembered that persons undertaking an apprenticeship do not find a completely open field. There are firm limits to the numbers of apprentices taken into a particular industry. The

proportion of apprentices to skilled workmen is laid down in rigid agreements and rigidly enforced, and it is impossible for any apprentice to anticipate 12 months beforehand that he will get into that particular trade. This new Clause does anticipate that apprentices can go freely into what is a very close corporation. That is the first point I want to make, and I expect the hon. Gentleman would say that he was unaware of that. If that is so and he was not trying to make the distinction, he will appreciate now that he is, in fact, making a distinction between the manual worker and the academic student. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am trying to be fair to the new Clause as drafted.
The second point is with regard to the student who is obliged under the National Service Act to undergo 12 months' routine training. He can say, "I can have a place in the university in 12 months' time, and because of that I want to postpone my whole-time service for the 12 months." Is it really suggested that that statutory right ought to be given? If there is no place for him there is time for him to do his full-time training. We ought not in those circumstances to give the right either administratively or by Statute to postpone his whole-time service when he has enough time in which to do it before starting on an academic career. If he is called up when he is 18—and it is at 18 that we are looking—he has 12 months' service to do. If, however, in 11 months and three weeks he can get a place in the university, is it suggested that he should have a statutory right to postpone his whole-time service? I do not think that that is a position which can be justified.
With regard to the second arm of the new Clause, I think the hon. Gentleman destroyed the argument which was put up originally in connection with the previous Amendment on the Order Paper. I had better indicate to the House what machinery does exist in order that hon. Members can be satisfied, and in this I am reiterating what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said in a previous Debate. The intention is that the student of 18, for whom there is a place in the university, shall be able to get deferment provided he has achieved the necessary academic attainments which will entitle him to go to the university. As to advice on that, it is not a matter solely


for Ministerial discretion, as hon. Gentlemen know. It is for the vice-chancellors of the universities and for the University Joint Recruiting Board who sit and examine every one of these cases, and who decide whether the educational attainment of the student is high enough to entitle him to a place in the university. In these matters of deferment of students we consult professional bodies that have been set up to give advice on the various forms of educational tuition.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: The point that worries me is when it ceases to be a right. I think the Parliamentary Secretary said just now that it is a right, and in the Second Reading Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said we were not considering so much the national interests as the individual interests. Clearly when there are the two together—and I do not think that I am in sympathy with the whole year—there is not this right. If it is a question of three months, six months or nine months, who is to make a decision? Surely it is not the University Joint Recruiting Board but the Manpower Board that has to make the decision.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making the point, but he should have let me finish. I have dealt with the University Joint Recruiting Board, which consists of the vice chancellors of the universities. They advise us and we accept their advice. When there is different treatment in different universities it is due to the fact that the vice chancellors have approached the exemptions in a different way. In those cases it would appear that the student in one place is having different treatment to the student in another, but in all these cases we accept the advice of the Joint University Recruiting Board. There are certain other departments of education where we have similar professional bodies of equal standing and they, as it were, adjudicate as between the claims of the student and the claims of the Ministry of Labour. In this connection the Manpower Board does not enter into the thing at all.
The Manpower Board deals with the cases of apprenticeships, and it seems to me that that Board is the right institution to deal with them. The Manpower Board

will decide whether or not an apprenticeship is a genuine one. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember the Debate on this. The Board will examine each individual case to see if the apprentice has got the right technical education and the right opportunity, and is not just cheap labour in a factory or workshop. Also it will have regard to the fact whether there are not too many apprentices in a workshop to get proper tuition for them all. The Manpower Board will be able to grant deferment for the purpose of permitting a boy to conclude his apprenticeship. Thus, there are two different ways of dealing with these men who are called up. There is first the academic machinery to permit the student who is fully qualified to secure deferment if he is entering a university, and there is the Manpower Board which can defer the period of service in order to permit an apprentice to finish his apprenticeship in industry.
There is a second point which arises, and I would ask the House to bear this in mind. If this statutory right is to be conferred on every boy in this country reaching the age of 18 we fear that it would result in a very small intake into the Army in the first year or two, because many of those due for call-up would be undergoing an apprenticeship or would be entering a university. They would get deferment for a time, and if they were genuine apprentices they will get a deferment for a considerable time It is true that they would not eventually dodge their liability, but they would have it deferred and deferred in such a way as to give them a privilege over other boys of 18 who are in precisely the same position as themselves.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to keep interrupting, but the hon. Gentleman has just made a most important remark. If he will look at the new Clause he will see that this right is given if the Minister is satisfied with the various circumstances set out in the Clause. Surely he will agree with me that in the case of bogus apprenticeships the Minister would not be satisfied? If the Minister would be satisfied, there is something the matter with the machinery of his Department.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I quite agree, but if the volume of applications became so great as to overrun the machinery, there could not be that examination of each case which


this House would expect us to make and we should have so many people going through the mesh as to cause criticism in this House and perhaps throw an undue burden upon the machine in trying to solve this problem.
There is a final matter. Normally the number of apprenticeships and studentships has a fairly even average. We can budget on that basis. The Forces budget on a basis of accepting 200,000 a year—that is round about the figure. If we create a situation in which 200,000 young men liable for service can make a claim that they are going to be students for 12 months or to be apprentices—that is intended in the Clause—it means that we should have a situation where there were so many claims that we could not examine them quickly and could do nothing with them, because once a claim had been put in, we could not call the young person up until we had sorted the whole thing out. This would cause very great administrative inconvenience and give rights where rights ought not to be given. The granting of a deferment should be on the basis that full advantage would be taken of it by the student or the apprentice, and it is important that we should have someone at the universities to tell us whether or not the student was really using his deferment for the purpose of his education and that the fellow who was playing the fool should not be allowed to have this advantage. The same thing should apply in industry. In those circumstances I regret that I must ask the House to reject the new Clause.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not think honestly that the hon. Gentleman has quite done himself justice on this occasion. He has debated this, I think, with great clarity and great fairness throughout all the stages, and we have been very grateful for that. It may be that I am misunderstanding him or not following properly, but I do not think he has quite lived up to his own standard. Perhaps I might, without excessive egotism, begin by saying that I am not personally at all excited over this thing. My belief is that in 99 cases out of 100, if a boy is going to a university he had better do his service first at the age of 18, like anybody else.

Mr. K. Lindsay: Does that mean—

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not wish to debate with the hon. Member for the Combined

English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) at the moment. As to my feeling, I have no sentiment in favour of making it easy for academic boys, so to speak, to put off this—no sentiment whatever of that kind. What we are asking for here is really the public interest. It was certainly in the public interest during the war, for instance, when trade union leaders were deferred. Under this Bill miners are going to be. Doctors and dentists are going to have the right to have their service as doctors and dentists and not to be called up until fully qualified. There are other things of that sort. Nobody throws it against them and says, "You are trying to shield the manual workers from the bullets," and so on. That is the last thing that would occur to us. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must do us the same justice.
What we are trying to consider is it the postwar world—which we were all promised would be so much better than the chaos before 1939—really is to he got going at all, the most important thing about it is that the boys most likely to he the leading boys of the next generation should be educated to the limit of their educability and should with the least interruption to their normal careers get into their civilian employment. That seems to me to be the overriding principle. We must do each-other the justice of supposing that we are not in pursuing that principle chasing any kind of privilege or minor advantage. If that is the guiding principle, is it a good thing? I speak of university boys because I know most about them technically, but so far as I understand the matter my arguments can in the main be transferred to apprentices.
In pursuit of that general principle, is it a good thing that there should be some class—I do not mean that in any social sense—some section of academic boys who should be able, and should know at the ages of 16 and 18 that they are going to be able, to do the thing in this order—in the order of time provided by this Clause? Is that a desirable thing? I think everybody agrees that it is a desirable thing. It is also a thing difficult to arrange administratively, and that two things have to be weighed against each other. With respect to the Minister, all his arguments really amounted to no more than to say there would be considerable


administrative difficulty about this. He said that this was all very well in normal times. He thought that 1946–47 were properly describable as mainly normal times, but in 1946–47 and still to this moment His Majesty's Government are holding boys under the pretence that the emergency—that is, the war against Germany—is still continuing. As long as the Government's military arrangements repose on that legal fiction, they must not use the argument of, "We have already had two years' experience of the way these things work in normal times." They cannot use that argument so long as they are holding boys under emergency provisions of—I will not say fraudulent, but—a fictitious kind.
The hon. Gentleman's only other argument was administrative inconvenience. Very well, I will admit that where the argument of administrative inconvenience is overwhelming, it is decisive, but it is the business not only of the Opposition but of all Private Members to be very slow to be convinced that the administrative inconvenience argument is overwhelming. I do not yet feel convinced by that part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Half his speech nearly seemed to be directed to saying that already under what he describes as normal arrangements and what he describes as these normal two years, all we are asking for, is being got, but it is being got by friendly arrangements between the Ministry and the vice-chancellors instead of a statutory provision. The other half of his argument was that the thing was inconceivably difficult from the administrative point of view and therefore could not be got.
I ask the House to consider that. The two parts of the argument do not fit very well. I am quite prepared to believe that the drafting of this may be wrong. If it is true that the drafting would give a greater advantage to the academy boys than to the apprentice boys, I certainly would be in favour of altering the drafting although I would ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that the ceiling of the possible number of academic boys is very small anyway. The whole number of these boys is much smaller still because it cannot be more than 10 per cent. of an entry at a university—the universities take 90 per cent. from the Services. It has got to be out of the 10 per cent.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman said 10 per cent. and 90 per cent. from the Services. Is he envisaging the situation when this Bill comes into operation?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not want that to become a permanent fixed level. If I was arguing unfairly, it was inadvertently. If it were the fixed level I do not think there can be the least doubt that the Minister would wish to take those who had done their service. I do not think this ratio of nine to one would vary very much in the four or five years this Bill contemplates. You have to remember that the universities have a time lag in this matter in the fact that boys called up in 1945 and 1946 are held longer than those called up in 1946 and 1947, and they are being held longer than those who will be called up under this Bill. For that reason the universities are now choked, and will be choked for the next few years. This Bill only contemplates five years, and therefore I do not think really there is any risk of making a very high ceiling for boys of this sort.
The second difference is that the university career really must begin in October. During recent years we have quite properly allowed it to start in other months, but, when that is avoidable, I beg hon. Gentlemen to take my word for it as a technician, so to speak, that it is a very great evil, even when it is unavoidable. That makes a difference from the apprentices and that weakens the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the 12 months. It would be 12 months only in the case of boys born in September. If he liked to cut it down to 10 months, I would be willing to accept it. Finally, I say this to him: He admits that in practice there is something almost amounting to a right of this kind, a kind of legitimate acceptance by way of agreement between his Department and the vice-chancellor's for a certain number of boys to get this sort of thing. That which is admitted to be tolerable, admitted to be useful, of which there is now some years of experience, is that something which his draftsmen could put into statutory form? If so, let us have it, and then we should all be contented that the right thing had been done. But I think it would be regrettable if we have to withdraw this Clause simply upon his argument, and I would suggest without


disrespect, that there has been no other serious argument of administrative inconvenience.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have covered a lot of ground in discussing this subject, both this evening and in Committee. I agree with my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) that in dealing with this Clause, both tonight and in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary dropped from the high level that he otherwise maintained throughout the Debate. The reason for it is not far to seek because he really is in difficulties in dealing with the substance of this new Clause. On the first occasion he got the Committee into a bog of deferment and subtle differences between the technicalities of deferment and postponement, and we tried to bring him back to deal with the broad issue as to whether the right of deferment should be a matter for the individual to claim in his own interest or whether, as in wartime, what was conceived, by the Ministry to be the national interest could override the interest of the individual. That is the fundamental issue raised by this new Clause.
This afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary has again sought to answer this new Clause by dealing primarily with technicalities. He discovered an unintended distinction between the treatment of apprentices and that of university students. The reason for this has been made quite clear, and I would point out to him that he was incorrect in saying that in the case of the university student who was wanting to go up within a year of the date of his call-up, it would be impossible for him to complete his year's full-time service in order to do that. That point really does not bear examination at all. His second point was as to the possible number of deferments, and the students in 12 months, or people who might become apprentices, would upset the whole planning of the intake for the Forces. I would concede straight away that in the second point there is much more substance, and it seemed to me that ultimately, towards the end of the Debate, we got the real ground for the opposition to this new Clause emerging.
I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that his fears with regard to that are unfounded. If young people

know that they have to do their whole-time service some time, and that they cannot avoid the liability under this Clause, I do not believe there will be a mass application for deferment; I think a great many young people will prefer to do their whole-time service before starting on their apprenticeship or their university education. Therefore, I think that the fears of the Parliamentary Secretary as to the effect of adopting the principle of this Clause are completely unfounded. It comes back to this: the Minister of Labour is nervous of giving up some of the power he has held throughout the war, the power of being able to say to a young man, "You must go into the Forces now." I would have liked to see a recognition by the Ministry of Labour now that the young man, on the advice of his parents, might say, "Well, having regard to this, that, and the other cause, it is in the interests of my future career"—whether he be a rich man or a poor man—"that I should defer my service for a year." In those circumstances, and only when the Minister is satisfied—as provided by this Clause at the beginning, which leaves the final decision with the Minister—I suggest that there should be a right to claim deferment.
The Minister of Labour on the Committee stage said that he would look at this again and consider it carefully. We have heard no word from him on it, and I hope he will say something. I hope he will be able to say that, on further reflection, he will accept the principle of allowing deferment where he is satisfied that it will not involve any avoidance of liability on the part of the person affected. If he can say that, I am sure my hon. Friends will be glad to withdraw this Clause and leave it to him to put down words to carry that principle into effect in another place. If he cannot go that far, I fear that we shall have no alternative but to show that we believe this principle should be adopted now that the war is over.

Mr. K. Lindsay: I am not happy about this wording, and, at the same time, I would like to get something a little more definite if possible. I remember clearly that in the previous Debate the Minister said he would look at it again. The reason why I interrupted my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University


(Mr. Pickthorn) was this: I have taken a lot of trouble to find out what the students, as far as the schools are concerned, feel about this. My own feeling was that a boy would prefer to go off and do his service first, and I said so, but I am told from the schools that there is great division. It is all very well to consult vice-chancellors of universities where the boys go at 17½, but the schools look at this in a rather different way. I was told by the headmaster of one big grammar school in the North of England this weekend that he was doubtful whether he would advise his boys to go off to the Services first. I am talking of those with open scholarships to the universities. So it is not quite clear yet, and nobody in this House knows precisely what the position will be. I think it is the right of the boy to know quite clearly when he is 16 or 17 what is his position.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the whole thing rested with the University Board and they were the people to decide, that they have decided in the past and that, therefore, it is completely outside the scope of the Manpower Board as far as the universities are concerned. This Clause seeks to give a person a right for 11 months hence. Suppose the university says it has a place four months ahead, would the right be conceded to the student to defer? He may have won his scholarship, and be waiting to go up in March, April or May. Would he have the right to defer? At the moment it seems to be left completely vague, and if the Parliamentary Secretary can find a happier form of words to give effect to his own phrase that it is in the interests of the student and not so much the national interest, I shall be completely satisfied.

Mr. Keenan: I think there is sufficient machinery to get deferment for those who are entitled to it. There seems to be a desire in this House, not so much to secure reasonable terms of National Service, but means of deferring, postponing, and getting out of service. At the best there have only been approximately 200,000 liable to be called up each year. What I am concerned about is that for nearly two years this House has been expressing a great deal of dissatisfaction at the length of time men are remaining in the Forces, and there has been growling about demobilisation, but

now we have come to a time when we have to do something about it. We have to introduce National Service primarily to keep up the strength of the Services, and to get out those who are in. Yet, here we are trying most of the time to get deferment for one class or the other, so that they can escape National Service.
I hate National Service. I never was a militarist, although I agree that the last war disclosed factors of which we did not know before. But if it is to be National Service, let it be National Service. We have the machinery for the student and apprentice to get deferment But the Opposition want to make it a statutory right; what for? The effect of it will be, as the Minister rightly stated, if not today, certainly a week ago, that the opportunity would be given for a very large number of people to get out of service—

Mr. Pickthorn: The Minister never said that.

Mr. Keenan: If he did not say it as directly as I said it, he implied it.

Mr. Pickthorn: No.

Mr. Keenan: I take the responsibility of saying that there are some who will get out of it, if they can. This Clause would give a great deal of encouragement and help to them. I hope the Minister will resist this Clause, because I believe the Bill is good enough as it is

6 45 p.m

Sir Peter Bennett: We have heard a lot about the educational side of the question, but I would like to come back to the question of apprentices. I am rather concerned at the feeling of uncertainty which seems to have crept into this matter I make no complaint about what has happened in the past in regard to the Manpower Board, but we are facing this question in cold blood. We have no heat of war, and are not concerned with any rush I was very sorry to hear the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that there was something wrong with the apprentice having a statutory right, and that he must be quite prepared for administrative action to take care of his future. As a boy approaches this period, he and his parents will be considering what his future is to be I would like an assurance that the matter will be clear and certain without any peradventure.
To suggest that this will mean that large numbers will conspire together to avoid


service or to postpone it, is quite a mistake. The idea of the youth will be to get on with it, and get it over. He looks forward to it with a certain amount of excitement, and does not want to postpone it. There will be no sort of conspiracy with the object of dodging it altogether. He and his parents would like to be quite certain, so that they can form their plans for the future. I am thinking of the ordinary apprentice, and I would like to hear the Minister say that he can take steps to make the future absolutely clear, without any suggestion that at a later date it will be settled by some administrative action and that the boy will not know until the last minute what is to happen.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): It has been mentioned that in the previous Debate I gave an undertaking. I gave an undertaking, and I will read the words:
We want to see that nobody escapes their military service. That is the first thing. We will certainly look at the Clause, and, if we are satisfied that anything more can be done

with it, we will try to do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 860.]

We are satisfied that nothing more can be done. We are-satisfied that if we start statutory deferments for one section as against another we shall only land ourselves into further difficulties. It is quite true there will not always be the same Minister at the head of the Department, but the Minister has to lay it down that we shall follow the intention of the House. This has worked with the greatest smoothness in the period just passed, and we feel that to make a change now, to swop horses while crossing the stream, would lead to a great deal of confusion. We cannot accept the Clause, nor undertake to make any further proposals.

Mr. Alexander: Mr. Alexander rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 128.

Division No. 219.
AYES.
[6.48.p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Cunningham, P.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hannan, W (Maryhill)


Allen, A. C (Bosworth)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hardy, E. A


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Harrison, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Deer, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Attewell, H. C
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hicks, G.


Austin, H. Lewis
Delargy, H. J
Hobson, C. R


Awbery, S. S.
Diamond, J
Holman, P.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.
Dodds, N. N
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Bacon, Miss A
Donovan, T.
House, G


Balfour, A.
Driberg, T. E N
Hoy, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hubbard, T.


Barton, C
Durbin, E. F. M
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Dye, S.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J
Edelman, M.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Berry, H.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Irving, W. J.


Beswick, F.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Janner, B.


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jay, D. P. T


Binns, J.
Ewart, R.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Blackburn, A. R
Fairhurst, F.
Jager, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Farthing, W J
John, W.


Blyton, W. R
Follick, M.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Boardman, H.
Foot, M. M
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Forman, J. C.
Jones, P. Aslerley (Hitchin)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Keenan, W


Brown, George (Belper)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kenyon, C.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E


Burke, W. A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Kinley, J.


Castle, Mrs B. A.
Gibbins, J.
Kirby, B. V


Chamberlain, R. A
Gibson, C. W
Lavers, S.


Champion, A. J.
Gilzean, A.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Chater, D.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gooch, E. G.
Leonard, W.


Clitherow, Dr. R
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Leslie, J. R.


Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Levy, B. W.


Collindridge, F.
Grey, C. F.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Collins, V. J
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Lindgren, G. S.


Colman, Miss G. M
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng Univ.)


Comyns, Dr. L
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Cook, T. F.
Gunter, R. J.
Logan, D. G.


Corvedale, Viscount
Guy, W. H
McAdam, W.


Cove, W. G.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
McAllister, G.


Crawley, A
Hall, W G
McEntee, V La T




McGhee, H. G
Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Mack, J. D.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Randall, H. E.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Ranger, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


McKinlay, A. S.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Timmons, J.


McLeavy, F.
Richards, R.
Titterington, M. F.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Tolley, L.


Mallalieu, J. P. W
Rogers, G. H. R.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Marquand, H. A.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Medland, H. M.
Royle, C.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Mellish, R. J.
Sargood, R.
Viant, S. P.


Messer, F.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Walkden, E.


Mitchison, G. R.
Segal, Dr. S.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Montague, F.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Moody, A. S.
Sharp, Granville
Watson, W. M.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Morris, P (Swansea, W.)
Shurmer, P.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Mort, D. L
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Moyle, A.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Mulvey, A.
Simmons, C. J.
Wilkes, L.


Murray, J. D
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Wilkins, W. A.


Nally, W.
Skinnard, F. W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Williamson, T.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F E. (Brentford)
Sorensen, R. W.
Willis, E.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Woodburn, A.


Oldfield, W. H.
Sparks, J. A.
Woods, G. S.


Orbach, M.
Steele, T.
Yates, V. F.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Pargiter, G. A.
Stross, Dr. B.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Stubbs, A. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Pearson, A.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith



Peart, Capt. T. F.
Swingler, S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Sylvester, G. O.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Harris, A. Wilson
Pickthorn, K.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Pitman, I. J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Beechman, N. A.
Hollis, M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bennett, Sir P.
Howard, Hon. A.
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Hurd, A.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bowen, R.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jennings, R.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Langford-Holt, J.
Ross, Sir R. O (Londonderry)


Butcher, H. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Byers, Frank
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Challen, C.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Scott, Lord W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, S. (Newark)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lipson, D. L.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Snadden, W. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Spearman, A. C. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Spence, H. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


De la Bère, R.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
MacLeod, J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Studholme, H. G.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Teeling, William


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)
Marples, A. E.
Touche, G. C.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wadsworth, G.


Gage, C.
Marshall, D (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Ward, Hon. G. R


Gammans, L. D.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Neill, W. F (Belfast, N.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Glyn, Sir R.
Nicholson, G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grant, Lady
Nield, B. (Chester)
York, C.


Gridley, Sir A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.



Grimston, R. V.
Nutting, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Mr. Drewe and


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Commander Agnew.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 234.

Division No. 220.]
AYES.
[6.58 p.m


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Harris, H. Wilson
Nutting, Anthony


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beechman, N. A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C.
Pickthorn, K.


Bennett, Sir P.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Birch, Nigel
Hollis, M. C
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Howard, Hon. A.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bowen, R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon R. S. (Southport)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Hurd, A.
Raikes, H. V.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Butcher, H. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Byers, Frank
Langford-Holt, J.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Challen, C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Linstead, H. N.
Scott, Lord W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lipson, D. L.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Darling, Sir W. Y
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Snadden, W. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


De la Bère, R.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Studholme, H. G.


Drewe, C.
MacLeod, J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Teeling, William


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A. F.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wadsworth, G.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Walker-Smith, D.


Gage, C.
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Marsden, Capt. A.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Gammans, L. D.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
York, C.


Glyn, Sir R.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.



Gridley, Sir A.
Neill, W F (Belfast, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.
Commander Agnew and




Major Conant.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Chater, D.
Foot, M. M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Clitherow, Dr. R.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Coldrick, W.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Walford)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Collindridge, F.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Attewell, H. C.
Collins, V. J.
Gibbins, J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Colman, Miss G. M.
Gibson, C. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Gilzean, A.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.
Cook, T. F.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Bacon, Miss A.
Corvedale, Viscount
Gooch, E. G


Baird J.
Crawley, A.
Goodrich, H. E.


Balfour, A.
Cunningham, P.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)


Barton, C.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Grey, C. F.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Deer, G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Berry, H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Beswick, F.
Delargy, H. J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Diamond, J.
Gunter, R. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Dodds, N. N.
Guy, W. H.


Binns, J.
Donovan, T.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Blackburn, A. R.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Blyton, W. R.
Durbin, E. F. M
Hardy, E. A.


Boardman, H.
Dye, S.
Harrison, J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Edelman, M.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hicks, G.


Brown, George (Belper)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hobson, C. R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Holman, P.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Burke, W. A.
Ewart, R.
House, G.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fairhurst, F.
Hoy, J


Chamberlain, R. A.
Farthing, W. J.
Hubbard, T.


Champion, A. J.
Follick, M.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)




Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Soskice, Maj Sir F


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Mort, D L
Sparks, J. A.


Irving, W. J.
Moyle, A
Steele, T.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Mulvey, A
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Janner, B
Nally, W
Stross, Dr. B.


Jay, D. P. T.
Naylor, T. E
Stubbs, A. E.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Summerskill, Dr. Edit[...]


Jeger, Dr. S. W (St Pancras, S.E.)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Swingler, S


John, W.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E (Brentford)
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Oldfield, W. H.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin[...]
Orbach, M.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Keenan, W
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Kenyon, C
Pargiter, G. A
Thurtle, Ernest


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.
Parkin, B T
Titterington, M. F


Kinley, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Tolley, L.


Kirby, B. V
Pearson, A.
Tomlinson, Rt Hon G


Lavers, S.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Turner-Samuels, M


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Leonard, W.
Proctor, W. T
Viant, S. P


Leslie, J. R
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Walkden, E.


Levy, B W
Randall, H. E
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Ranger, J
Warbey, W. N.


Lindgren, G. S
Rees-Williams, D R
Watson, W M.


Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng Univ.)
Reid, T (Swindon)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col M
Richards, R
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Logan, D. G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


McAdam, W
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wigg, Col. G. E


McAllister, G.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wilkes, L.


McEntee, V La T
Royle, C.
Wilkins, W A.


Mack, J. D
Sargood, R
Willey, F T. (Sunderland)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Scott-Elliot, W
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Segal, Dr. S
Williams, W. R (Heston)


McKinley, A. S.
Shackleton, E. A. A
Williamson, T


Maclean, N. (Gov[...]
Sharp, Granville
Willis, E.


McLeavy, F
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St Helens)
Woodburn, A


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Woods, G. S.


Mallalieu, J. P. W
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Marquand, H. A
Simmons, C J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Modland, H. M
Skeffington, A M.
Zilliacus, K


Mellish, R. J
Skeffington-Lodge, [...]



Messer, F
Skinnard, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Mitchison, G. R
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Montague, F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S W)
Mr. Popplewell


Moody, A S
Snow, Capt J W

NEW CLAUSE.—(Regular engagements.)

If during his whole-time or part-time service under this Act any person is entered in the regular navy under the Naval Discipline Act or enlisted in the regular army or regular air force under the Army and Air Force Acts, then, for the purpose of any enactment, regulation or order relating to terms or conditions of service, his whole-time service under this Act shall be reckoned as being service after such entry or enlistment as aforesaid.—[Brigadier Prior-Palmer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.0 p.m.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is fully realised on all sides of the House that we wish to give the maximum possible inducement to men to volunteer for the Regular Services. During the course of their full-time service, and even during the course of their part-time service, they may suddenly feel that there is an urge to enlist in the Regular Forces. It may be that they will be anxious in regard to pension, pay and so forth, respecting the service which they have

already given under this Bill. We feel very strongly that in order to encourage people to enlist in the Regular Army, the service which they have already rendered, especially the whole-time service, should count as part of their Regular engagement and should be reckoned as service for purposes of pension and pay, etc. We make this suggestion purely with the idea of making this abundantly clear so that there will be no doubt in the minds of the men. It is not a very difficult point. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the force of it and will accept our new Clause.

Brigadier Head: I beg to second the Motion.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) has made all the necessary points. I hope the Minister will consider our suggestion sympathetically. I am sure that he will agree that the one thing we want to do is to encourage voluntary recruitment to the Regular Forces.

Mr. Bellenger: I fully agree with the purpose behind this new Clause, but I do


not think it will be necessary for the purpose which the hon. and gallant Members wish to achieve. Actually, the whole-time service will count towards pension, and it is covered under the Royal Warrant. There is only one thing which is not covered, and I do not think the mover and seconder wanted this, and that is that it will not count towards reducing the period of colour service under the regular engagement into which the National Service man might enter. I hope that, with this assurance that the object which the hon. and gallant Members had in mind will be achieved. they will withdraw the new Clause.

Mr. Eden: I want to be absolutely clear. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the service will count for pension?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir

Captain Marsden: Part of the reason for this new Clause was to encourage volunteering for the Army. It is well known that, if sufficient inducements are offered, there will be an adequate number of volunteers who will be available. In the past, the numbers have sometimes been four and five times more than was necessary, but, in the Navy today, it is regretted that, under the present conditions, it is necessary to bring in conscripts. It is unfortunate, but we accept the position. It will appear that the training the men will undergo will count for pension, but, at the same time, the men will have to do the full period, and I want to ask whether they are going to get added pension for the extra service. I think that is something which ought to be reconsidered.

Colonel Ropner: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, if the Royal Warrant covers the point which has been mentioned, it is not possible, and even advisable, to put it into the Bill? I am not clear what objection the Minister has to that course being adopted.

Mr. Bellenger: If I might answer that question, this new Clause, if accepted, would not only achieve that object—to ensure that colour service under the Bill would count for pension in a Regular engagement—hut would have the effect of reducing, for example, the period of five years' colour service in the Army, which would be uneconomical for the Army.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: May I ask one further question? The Minister mentioned whole-time service, but if he looks at the new Clause, he will see that part-time service is included. Does it not include part-time service?

Mr. Bellenger: Not for pension.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: In view of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Service of Notices.)

(1) Any notice required or authorised by or under this Act or the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1946, to be served on any person may be served either—

(a) by delivering it to that person; or
(b) by leaving it at his proper address; or
(c) by post;

so, however, that where a notice is served by post otherwise than in a registered letter service shall not be deemed to have been effected if it is proved that the notice was not received by the person to whom it was addressed.

(2) The proper address 01 any person on whom such a notice as aforesaid is to be served shall he the last known address of the person to be served.—[Brigadier Prior-Palmer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
As the Bill stands, the service of notices is still governed by Section 18 of the old Act. We consider that, in the past, this provision has given rise to opportunities for hardship, and there have been cases of hardship. We had a certain amount of discussion on this matter during the Committee stage in the early hours of the morning, when I do not think any of us were really very clear about it, and we now wish to advance arguments in favour of the inclusion of the new Clause in the Bill so as to give added security to the person on whom notice for service is served.
In the past, all that has been necessary has been proof of posting of the letter or notice of service. We suggest that the non-receipt of that notice, in many cases, has been through no fault whatever of the individual concerned, but it has led to military and civil lapses, and we think that is wrong. We are not asking the


Government to do anything out of the way or anything which has not been done before, because, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Government's own Bill—the Statistics of Trade Bill—he will see that, in Clause II, these very conditions for the serving of notices, as we have tabled them in this new Clause, are there included.

Brigadier Head: I beg to second the Motion.
It seems both a rational and a helpful new Clause, and I cannot see that there is any objection to it.

Mr. Isaacs: I appreciate the way in which the hon. and gallant Gentlemen have put their case, but we cannot accept this new Clause as it stands, and I will give the reasons. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the new Clause said it would give added security, but we are afraid that it would give added opportunities of evasion. I will give the reasons for that. The Clause provides that
where notice is served by post otherwise than in a registered letter service shall not be deemed to have been effected if it is proved that the notice was not received by the person to whom it was addressed.
There is a lovely opportunity there for chasing this thing around. Somebody has to prove that it was not received. It is clear that the obligation is not upon the Post Office to prove that it was received. There are lots of ways in which it can be done. It would be possible, and I could give as an example, knowing of similar things that have happened in the past, the case of serving a summons for a breach of the peace. The person concerned might be out in the backyard when he sees the policeman coming and he does not want the notice served upon him. In this case, however, there has to be evidence that it was not received by the person concerned. The person expecting to receive the call-up notice might be one of the small minority that we have in this country and might want to evade being called up. All that he has to do is to keep out of the way.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: There are certain alternatives here—by delivering it to that person, or by leaving it at his proper address.

Mr. Isaacs: I know. The hon. and gallant Member says "by leaving it at his proper address." We should then have to decide his proper address. Is it a permanent address?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: We have an Amendment down.

Mr. Isaacs: I know, and that is why I do not want to anticipate the discussion on it. I believe myself that, if we were to accept this proposal, we should run into any amount of trouble. Let us suppose that the man is a lodger, and that he is out when the notice arrives, and that the landlady does not give it to him, but, instead, puts it behind one of the ornaments on the mantelpiece, and forgets. The notice has been delivered, and, therefore, in ordinary circumstances, the evidence of posting is considered as evidence of delivery. There might be another case where the boy's mother wants him to be tied to her apron strings. The notice may arrive, and she may destroy it. I can assure the House that millions of notices have been sent out under the existing Act with very little disagreement at all. Each of those notices goes through the hands of two persons. They are checked twice, first in the checking department and then in the issuing enlistment notice department. In each case there are two officials whose only job is to do that, and to see that everything is properly done. In the very small number of cases where there has been any difficulty, it has been traced, in the main, to the fact that the person has not registered his change of address as required by the Act. We feel that a great deal of trouble might be caused and evasions made possible if this method was adopted. I have no legal knowledge, but I am sure that anybody with such knowledge would agree that a person to whom a notice was addressed could come along and say he had not received it Therefore, we ask the House not to tie us down to such a system.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have listened with interest to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, although I am sorry that I did not hear the speeches of those who moved the new Clause. I shall also read the right hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest, because it seems to me that I may be able to use it against his right hon. and learned Friend the President of


the Board of Trade. Indeed, I am a little surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman attacking so vigorously a new Clause which is almost precisely similar to a Clause contained in a Bill which bears his own name. I refer to Clause II of the Statistics of Trade Bill, which provides this excellent code for service of notice upon business men, firms and everyone carrying on undertakings throughout the country. In that Bill, the right hon. Gentleman thinks this the right way of serving notice. He has backed the proposal. I must say that it occurred to me that it was an extremely good way, and it was, therefore, with some interest that I heard his speech attacking and trying to make holes in a similar Clause to that which the Government themselves have put forward. If this particular code with regard to the service of notices is right in the case of business men, firms, undertakings and shops—notices calling upon them to furnish all kinds of information, for failing to do which heavy penalties can be imposed—why is not the same provision right in the case of the enlistment of men who are going to be called up for a period of 12 months' whole-time service? That is a question which has not been answered. I do not believe that there is any substance in the right hon. Gentleman's case against this new Clause. What happens now is that a letter is sent through the ordinary post and the man is deemed to be enlisted when that letter is received. I agree that an ordinary letter might be put anywhere. It might be put behind the ornament on the mantelpiece, but if the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry send a registered letter, which, surely, they can do quite simply, it is not likely that a landlady will put that behind the ornament on the mantelpiece and forget all about it.

Mr. S. Silverman: It will not matter if she does.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says, it will not really matter if she does. Surely, what is right in respect of notices under the Statistics of Trade Bill is also right under this Bill. I agree that, in wartime, there is something to be said for service through the ordinary post, but there is nothing to be said in peacetime against the serving of enlistment notices by registered post, in order to ensure, as far as possible, that

the recipient gets it and to avoid, as far as possible, the disputes that have occurred and may occur again when a man says, on being charged with being a deserter, "I never received the notice," and when, on the other side, there is the evidence that the notice was sent by the ordinary post. It is not really very satisfactory, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the good precedent he has set in the Statistics of Trade Bill, and to look at this matter again.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I hope that we shall have the benefit of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General's opinion on this matter. It seems rather strange that in two Bills, one of them being considered by the House today, and the other to be considered by the House tomorrow, there should be two different codes regarding service, and that the Minister of Labour should back both Bills, and say tomorrow that the thing is sense and today that it is nonsense. I should have thought that on general lines of propriety one would not want, in two different Bills brought before the House in the same week, two quite different codes governing service.
As my hon. and learned Friend has just pointed out, the arguments, such as they were, in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he savagely attacked the actual proposal of the Board of Trade in the Statistics of Trade Bill, are all arguments directed to the difficulties which would be caused under this Clause by sending the document by ordinary post, and not in a registered letter. All the difficulties could be avoided by a registered letter. It is really useless for the Government to assert that this new Clause, which is in the very terms of the Clause included in another Bill, is unworkable or nonsense. It is perfectly workable, and perfectly good sense. I think that, unless the right hon. and learned Attorney-General can give some good reasons against it, it should be accepted. In any event, we are, surely, entitled to some further explanation from the Government.

Mr. Logan: I am at a loss to understand why the Minister is not able to accept this new Clause. If an ordinary letter is posted, which is to carry liability against a person, and that person does not know anything about it, it would appear that he


is liable to be brought before the court, but if a letter is sent to a person and he has to attend at court, unless it can be proved that that letter has been delivered to the individual by a policeman, or some accredited person, it will not be considered as having been delivered. To obviate the difficulty, the registered letter should be used, since that, to my mind, carries with it something tantamount to delivery. As we are going to ask the men to go into the Forces, I do not see what is wrong in sending them registered letters. It would obviate a lot of difficulty, and I should have thought that a new Clause of this description would have been acceptable.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I desire to say a few words in the same sense as my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan). I cannot see why this new Clause should not be accepted. It is all very well to say that the old system has worked well, and to talk about the majority of cases, but it is not always the majority of cases that count. Obviously, there are cases where things go wrong. I myself have been professionally concerned more than once during the war in cases where the military police have arrived at a man's house, arrested him in bed, carted him off to the other end of the country, put him in the guardroom and court-martialled him, only to find that the arrest was wrong, because no proper notice had been served on the man. If this kind of service is to be permanent or semi-permanent in peacetime, it would not put a great burden upon the Executive to require them to send notices by registered post instead of by ordinary post. As I understand it, this new Clause requires no more than that. Every one of the dangers and iniquities which my right hon. Friend put forward as reasonable grounds for resisting the new Clause would be obviated completely by the simple device of sending the notices by registered post, and that is what the new Clause provides for. Why the right hon. Gentleman should resist so convenient and sensible a course, I cannot imagine.

Colonel Ropner: I rise because I observe no inclination on the part of the Attorney-General to do so. I hope we may hear again from the Government Front Bench on this matter, and that hon. Members

on this side of the House will continue to press this point until the Attorney-General has given a fuller explanation. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that in two Bills, the Government are taking two diametrically opposed courses of action. I would remind the Government that in the Agriculture Bill the same sort of question arose. In fact, in a large number of Bills questions very similar to this have arisen and will arise in the future. The Government should make up their minds on what is the right course to pursue and, having made up their minds, that course should be followed in successive Bills in future. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us what distinction he draws between this and other Bills.

Mr. Isaacs: I must admit that I am very much shaken by the arguments that have been adduced. I know I am on a sticky wicket, and that a fast ball has been bowled at me. I cannot promise to accept this new Clause as it stands, but I do promise that we will look at it, and at the next opportunity bring in something to put that point right. I was very much swayed in my own mind at the beginning by the fact that it would mean 400,000 notices a year in respect of the summonses for medical examination and he enlistment notices alone. It would make a great deal more work; it would not be a question of cost, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get nothing out of it as the notices would be sent "On His Majesty's Service." To be quite frank, when speaking earlier, I omitted to mention the point of the extra work, but it is a very important point. On the other hand, we are dealing with the liberty of the individual, and I admit the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Time and again, as a magistrate, I have had to insist on a policeman going into the witness box to prove that he delivered the summons. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Therefore, if the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw the proposed Clause, I will undertake to do something to cover the point.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief of conscientious objectors from certain penalties and obligations.)

Where any person who has claimed exemption under this Act or under the principal Act on conscientious grounds has served one or more sentences of imprisonment amounting in all to three months for failing to fulfil any obligation arising out of this Act, including any obligation to be medically examined, he shall be exempted from further penalty and from any further liability under this Act.—[Mr. S. Silverman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The course taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service just now encourages me to hope that he will take a similar course in regard to this new Clause. The undertaking which he has just given, and which I am sure he will honour when the time comes, has already been given in the Committee stage in regard to the new Clause the Second Reading of which I am now moving. I would like to call his attention to two statements which he made during the Committee stage. On 8th May he said:
I want to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne We are very anxious not to get conscientious objectors into the position of being brought up, dealt with, put in prison, taken out of prison, dealt with, brought up again, and so on. We want to get away from all that. That is the point which will be raised when we reach the proposed new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
That point was not dealt with on the occasion to which my right hon. Friend referred, because I was not called, but there was another opportunity in the Committee stage when reference was again made to the point, and that was in connection with the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson). On that occasion, dealing with a similar point, my right hon. Friend said:
We are very much appalled by the idea that it is possible for a man to be constantly going in and out of prison for the same offence. But, the trouble with this Amendment is that it refers to 'any person…who declares himself to be a conscientious objector.' There must be some satisfaction that he is a conscientious objector. I cannot accept the Amendment for that, and other reasons, which I will not go into now. But I would like to

know what the Committee feels about this matter. I am not very skilled in dealing with these matters in Committee, but I would like to know, as we cannot accept this Amendment, whether it would be possible for me"—
I gather he is speaking for himself—
to have a look at this before the Report stage, and bring forward an Amendment then on which the House could say something.
I hope I am not being unfair about this, but that looks to me like a promise by my right hon. Friend to put something down on the Report stage, and I confess that I am a little disappointed to rind nothing put down by my right hon. Friend or by the Government on this matter. I was not in a hurry, because I hoped that the Government would put something down, and I thought it would be wise for the rest of us to see what form of words they put down, or what opinion they formed, before rushing in with proposals of our own.
But it was intimated then and there in the Committee that it might be well if some of us tried our hands at drafting a suitable Clause, and, in order to give my right hon. Friend as long notice as possible, I did then and there attempt to draft one. Later I suggested this as a possible form of words:
Where any person who has claimed exemption under this Act, or the principal Act, on conscientious grounds, and who has either had his claim rejected, or granted subject to conditions which he refuses to accept, has served a sentence of — for failing to fulfil any obligation under this Act, he shall be exempted from further penalty, or further liability to serve."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May 1947; Vol. 437, cc. 835, 867, 868.]
I do not want to bore the House with further quotations. I went on to say that it seemed to me that that form of wards met the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend found himself in regard to the new Clause which my hon. Friend had moved, that difficulty being that under the new Clause a simple declaration by the man that he was a conscientious objector would have been sufficient. My right hon. Friend felt—and I confess I agreed with him—that that would not quite do Therefore, I put forward the proposal where he had, in fact, made his application to a tribunal and the tribunal had considered it.
It then seemed to me that the new Clause which my hon. Friend had moved


had another defect, in that it did not say what penalty should be served. It did provide the principle that since this was, in effect, only one offence there should be only one penalty; but it did not define the penalty. That might have meant that, in different cases, there would be different penalties for the same offence, which would be an undesirable thing. The Clause ought to define the penalties as well as defining the beneficences, as it were, and I attempted to do both those things, although I am afraid I shirked the task of saying what the penalty ought to be. However, since my right hon. Friend has himself put nothing down on the Order Paper, I have put down this new Clause which I am now moving. The only difference in principle between the new Clause I am moving and the one I suggested in Committee—I do not think the wording is exactly the same—is that for convenience I have included the point about the medical examination, so covering both points in the one Clause. Under the one law a man who claimed to have a conscientious objection could be fined repeatedly, and imprisoned repeatedly for repeated refusals to attend for medical examination. It is not necessary for me to labour the argument. In the opinion of everybody that would be either absurd or tyrannous, and whether absurd or tyrannous ought to be stopped, and my right hon. Friend said so in Committee. I tried to meet that by putting it in as one of the liabilities under the Bill.
What is the position? Those who are enthusiastic supporters of the principle of compulsion, those who are reluctant supporters of the principle of compulsion, and those who are opponents of the principle of compulsion, are all agreed that when a conscientious objection has been established to be genuine there should be no penalty and no liability, and the man's conviction should be suspended. There is no difference between us on that point, in any quarter of the House. I make no complaint of the machinery set up. I do not think tribunals have always worked perfectly, but then I cannot think of any machine doing such a job as this which could possibly work perfectly. Of course it does not work perfectly but they have done very well, and I think the proportion of errors made is surprisingly small in view of the difficulty of the task

involved, especially in view of the temper in which such a task is necessarily performed in wartime. I suppose there might be even fewer mistakes in the judicious and calm temper in which a tribunal would approach such a question in peacetime.
7.45 p.m.
However, there still would be the risk of mistakes, and the question that arises is: what is to happen when subsequent events prove that the tribunal, with the best will in the world and acting with the most perfect fairness, was, nevertheless, mistaken? When a man appeared before the tribunal to answer their questions he may have been shy or awkward, he may have had something for breakfast which disagreed with him; anything might put a man into such a mood that his answers do not satisfy the tribunal; indeed, the members of the tribunal may have had something which disagreed with them. People are human beings and not mere machines. All that this new Clause seeks to do is to provide that where mistakes of that kind have been made, and where the man's devotion to his conscientious belief has been demonstrated by his readiness to bear burdens, to make sacrifices and suffer an element of persecution—because it is that if the objection is really conscientious—then the State must cry a halt at some stage. I know that they do administratively, but under the old procedure after certain sentences had been served a man came before a central tribunal, and the central tribunal considered the matter again. They might examine him or they might not, because even in those circumstances a central tribunal, after all that, might still be obstinate, or might still be mistaken.
Therefore, it seems to many of us—I hope to all of us—that there should be some statutory curtailment of the perpetual in and out of gaol and penalties. I do not want to labour it further. I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to help me on this. He represents Caerphilly. I know we have our disagreements from time to time, but we have been Members of and colleagues in this House for a long time, and I do not want to do or say anything to imply any kind of disrespect. On the contrary, I have the utmost affection for him. I remember his predecessor, as I am sure he does, in the representation of Caerphilly, the late Mr. Morgan Jones, of


whom I was proud to be a colleague in this House for a short time. He was a conscientious objector during the last war, and he was in and out of gaol several times because he failed to satisfy the tribunal that his conscientious objection was a genuine objection. I think I am right in saying, that, am I not?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No. Mr. Morgan Jones absolutely refused to go before a tribunal, which is an entirely different point.

Mr. Silverman: No, my hon. Friend will forgive me, it is not an entirely different point. I know all about the absolutist conscientious objector: I was one myself. I was very young, and I am not ashamed of having taken that view. I do not think that the world today is quite the world it was in 1914, and the view that it was possible to take in 1914 it was not possible to take in 1939—at any rate, I did not think it was. I know it is easier to take a different view when one is older, when one does not have to do it oneself. I appreciate what can be said about that. However, I think I was perfectly sincere on both occasions, and know Mr. Morgan Jones was perfectly sincere. The absolutist conscientious objector merely said: "I am not going to bargain about this thing at all." He used the analogy of the criminal law, and so on. He regarded the thing as wrong. If a person does that he does not bargain; he does nothing except insist that his scruples shall be respected. Nobody doubts now that Mr. Morgan Jones was perfectly sincere and genuine in what he did, or that his attitude represented the man's religious convictions; the man's whole personality was involved in the attitude he took up. He spent a long time in prison for it. I think that my hon. Friend in the constituency of Caerphilly was well known as a loyal lieutenant of Mr. Morgan Jones for many years, and that he owes his position in this House to that. He ought to have sympathy with me in this new Clause.
I see one great difficulty. People will say; "Oh, yes, this is all very well, but under this new Clause a man can buy himself out of his liabilities by serving a sentence of three months' imprisonment. A great many will do so." I do not believe a great many will do it. If there are a few people who dishonestly do it. I would rather take that risk, than take

the risk involved in having no limit by statute in peacetime. I think that the risk is a small risk, and that such risk as there is ought to be taken.

Mr. James Hudson: I beg to second the Motion.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I can speak in terms of disappointment that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who, I thought, dealt with the matter very generously and understandingly when it was first raised, has not found it possible to present a new Clause which I, owing to my technical ignorance of the law, was not able to do. I said at the time that I was not really excusing myself, but that I understood the Minister or his Department would get us out of the difficulty. But here we are, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne says, without the promised new Clause. I have a further complaint of a more serious character to make unless I can get the Government to agree with me, as I sincerely hope they will. It is that the Parliamentary Secretary himself went all the way, at any rate in theory, to the acceptance of the ideas embodied in the new Clause now before the House. I will read from what the Parliamentary Secretary said with regard to the continuing imprisonments. He said:
After each imprisonment the man's case is reviewed, and is sent back to the tribunal for the tribunal to review again in the light of the test of the man's sincerity to see what the position is. I am advised that"—
I hope my hon. Friend takes responsibility for the statement—
very careful rules have been drawn up under which no man is prosecuted after he has served a sentence or sentences amounting to three months or more. I am advised that, furthermore, a man is not prosecuted more than twice even if such prosecutions result in prison sentences of less than three months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 1875.]
Well, the terms of this new Clause correspond fairly exactly with that promise. I hope, therefore, that both the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Government, will now be able to say that, in view of the uncertainty in the past—and, certainly, the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that it is a very long past where conscientious objectors are concerned—not merely the administrative rules, but the law itself should be put beyond all


shadow of doubt, in the terms regarding conscientious objectors. When I first introduced the matter—and I have every excuse for quoting this, because I should like to get not only the support of the Government but the support of the Opposition—when the first and principal Measure in connection with national service was introduced, the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, said, quite frankly, that he hoped we should drop the whole idea of persecuting men who stood for conscience. He agreed it was a nuisance to attempt to go on trying to make them do things which, conscientiously, they would decline to do, and that it was bad business on the part of the State to try to adopt any other attitude than that of recognising these men's consciences.
We have made some sort of a compromise on the difficulties that this issue has always presented. I referred to these difficulties previously, when I said that a supposed conscientious objector might be masquerading as such, that he might be a lunatic, that he might be a criminal, that he might be a social saboteur doing his best to injure the Act of Parliament under which he was being treated. I admit all that. But they are very exceptional instances. After the long experience we have had of conscientious objectors, it has come to be generally recognised that a man who will face the social ostracism that always accompanies the imprisonment and in some cases is worse than the actual imprisonment and the long period of unpopularity afterwards, must be genuine. A man who will face that for the sake of his convictions begins to earn respect, even from his opponents, for the opinions he holds. Indeed, people think that that man should not be sent to any imprisonment at all. This Clause recognises the difficulties, and the efforts to find out whether a man is genuine. It may be that he will get a month's imprisonment. This Clause lays it down, as the regulations will, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, that when three months have been served in continuous sentences, or in one sentence of three months, that ought to be sufficient for the State. I shall be bitterly grieved—I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not think I am extravagant in making this statement—and there will be many people

in Caerphilly who will be bitterly grieved, if, after all the developments of public opinion that have taken place since the heroic days of Morgan Jones, this Labour Government cannot see its way to put this provision into law, so that there will be no more mistakes by tribunals, and no more mistakes by Government Departments. I beg of the Government not to let this opportunity pass of accepting the new Clause.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We have listened to two speeches the sentiments of which, I am sure, have appealed to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I will deal first with the undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave in Committee. Anybody who knows my right hon. Friend will agree that there is no duplicity in his make-up, and that when he gives an undertaking he gives it in good faith and has the intention to give effect to his promise. We have examined this matter very closely. We have tried to provide in the Bill for the kind of treatment that is now meted out administratively I hope my hon. Friends to whom this undertaking was given will realise that my right hon. Friend is not playing false to them, or doing anything deliberately to mislead them That has not been suggested, and I do not think it would be suggested against my right hon. Friend from any part of the House
I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for the very kind references he made to my predecessor and to me. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) thinks that by this new Clause we would prevent mistakes in the future, he is himself mistaken. What is the procedure? The tribunals are set up with the authority of the House. There is an appellate tribunal. If a man fails at the local tribunal, he can go to the appellate tribunal That is the distinction I was trying to draw. We have all agreed that men who want to claim the rights of conscientious objection should go before a tribunal. Even with the best will in the world, and with the best machinery, the tribunals will sometimes make mistakes. The new Clause seeks to protect a man who has failed to convince the tribunal that he is a bona fide conscientious objector. Whatever we may do, there will always be cases of that kind, and with all due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing,


whatever may be the feelings of my constituents in Caerphilly, there is nothing I or the House can do to prevent these mistakes from occurring. Therefore, we are concerned about those cases of men who are bona fide conscientious objectors, where, as a result of an error on the part of the tribunal, or a failure on the part of the man in putting his case—which very frequently happens, with the result that frequently the tribunals are blamed, although it is neither their fault nor, indeed, that of the man, but simply the result of his inability to put his case—there are wrong results. In those cases we do not want a man to be running into and out of prison.
The new Clause says that, if the man has served three months' imprisonment, we should let him go. In many cases the punishment that would be provided under the new Clause would be greater than the punishment that is allowed today. We do not want a bona fide conscientious objector who has not been registered to have to serve three months' imprisonment before the case against him is dropped. What we want to do is to maintain the present practice. Undertakings that were given in Committee by my right hon. Friend and by me have been quoted. I would like to repeat them. The position is that this is, in fact, prevented by administrative rules under which no man is prosecuted after he has served a prison sentence or sentences amounting to three months or more, and which provide, furthermore, that a man is not prosecuted more than twice even if these two prosecutions have resulted in prison sentences of less than three months, except where the sentences are derisory, for instance, small fines. The man goes before the tribunal, he fails to convince the tribunal, and his failure to convince it cannot be blamed upon anybody. [Interruption.] I thought I had covered that ground. I am taking a case where there is no fault on the part of the man or the tribunal—

Mr. Stephen: For the sake of argument.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes. The man is refused registration, and he is called for medical examination preliminary to his being called up to the Forces. He refuses to appear for medical examination. He is then taken before the local magistrates and is sentenced to, say, one month's imprisonment. As soon as that man is out

of prison, we send his case back to the tribunal for re-examination. The House has decided that the tribunal, and not the Minister, must decide, and the Minister cannot usurp the position of the tribunal. The man goes back to the tribunal with a statement from the Ministry of Labour that he has been in prison for one month, and the tribunal is asked to review his case, taking into consideration that he has shown what he is made of, and what his intentions are, by serving the sentence. After having examined the man, the local tribunal may refuse to register him, but in that case he automatically goes to the appellate tribunal. Here is a case in which the Ministry of Labour directs that the man should go from the local tribunal to the appellate tribunal. The appellate tribunal may turn him down again, and he may again be called up for medical examination, and refuse to appear. He then goes before the magistrates again, and is sentenced to another month's imprisonment. At the end of that month, we are satisfied that we ought not to proceed any further against him.

Mr. S. Silverman: I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he must make up his mind between two positions—either an end is to be put to the cat-and-mouse business by Act of Parliament, or an end must be put to it administratively. Unless he provides a limit in the Statute, then administratively he has no power at all, because while a man remains in defiance of his obligation under the Bill and fails to persuade a tribunal to put it right, no Minister, no civil servant, and not even this House itself has the right to authorise that he shall not be prosecuted. If it is desired to stop the prosecutions and imprisonments when a term has been served, it must be put in the Bill, because otherwise there is no legal power to do it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is very interesting, because it means, if it means anything at all, that in the past we ought to have continued to prosecute these men.

Mr. Silverman: By law, certainly.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not accept that position. This House does not accept that position and never has accepted it. The situation has been reported repeatedly to this House. The present Foreign Secretary reported during the war on what the procedure was, and it was accepted by


this House. To suggest that all that has been done illegally, at this stage, in order to impose a greater penalty than that which is now imposed, is really carrying things too far.

Mr. Silverman: I beg the hon. Gentleman to believe that however stupid we are, we are perfectly serious in what we are saying. In so far as people were exempted by administrative action from obligations under the Act otherwise than in accordance with a decision of a tribunal, we were all deliberately and rightly closing our eyes to an illegal thing and allowing it to be done in order that a moral thing should be done. What we are saying now is that we cannot tolerate that in peace time, and that we must establish the law.

Mr. Paget: That is a wholly wrong statement of law. The situation is that the right to prosecute or not to prosecute is always—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be about to make a speech; I thought he rose to ask a question.

Mr. Paget: The Parliamentary Secretary gave way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary may have given way, but I cannot allow the hon. and learned Member to make a speech. If he wants to put a question, he may do so.

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is an interesting legal argument, but I am concerned about the facts—about what we have done, and what we undertake to do in these cases. The Amendment goes further than that. It says that the Minister of Labour cannot act until a man has done three months. If this goes into the Statute it is a direct instruction to the Minister. A man may have had two convictions against him, convictions perhaps of less consequence than three months imprisonment but this says that he must allow him to have three months' imprisonment first. That, it seems to me, is making the position worse for the mistaken case of a conscientious objector who is unable to get registered. [An HON. MEMBER: "You can reduce the period if you like."] That is what I cannot understand. First we are told that we have no legal right to do what we are now doing; and after

having laid down a period, we are told that we can exercise that right. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not want to be unfair, I have given way repeatedly—

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the interjection that was made. No one is suggesting that if three months is put into the Bill he can make it two; what we are suggesting is that if he thinks this proposed period of three months is too long, we will allow him to amend it, either here or in another place, and put in two, or one, or nothing.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Then we shall get into this fine state, that a man will know beforehand—and I say this in the interests of conscientious objectors—that if he does a month in prison he will get off. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the danger we shall get into, and it will bring discredit upon conscientious objectors. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two months."] If you make it two months or any fixed period, that will happen. Conscientious objection is a purely personal matter, and each case must be considered upon its merits. It is a personal question. You cannot legislate in a very general way about it and, whatever has been said, even the mover of the Amendment admits that the administration in regard to conscientious objectors in the late war has been, especially in the later stages, fair by and large.
There have been mistakes; we willingly admit that. We have tried to mitigate the effect of those mistakes. We have tried to correct every reasonable case. We have sought the assistance of the tribunals time after time where errors have taken place. We have referred cases to appellant tribunals and have got their assistance, and the Minister has the right to do that. We have given a guarantee that there will be no "cat and mouse" business in connection with this, and I think the House would be well advised to leave the matter with the Minister of Labour to carry on with those principles. We have rules for dealing with these cases, and I think my right hon. Friend would agree with me in being prepared to put a copy of those rules in the Library, so that hon. Members can see for themselves how it is


being done. Then, if they feel that adequate protection is not given to the case that has slipped through the tribunal, they will be able to make their representations to us. In view of these undertakings, in the interests of the conscientious objectors themselves I hope my hon. Friend will not press this new Clause.

Mr. Carmichael: I think the stronger case on this question has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary, but although he desires to aid the conscientious objector, it has been impossible to find, words that could be embodied in the Bill. I submit that there has been a very great change in this country during the last 30 years towards conscientious objectors. Those who were involved during the 1914–18 war are bound to admit that the treatment they received then was very harsh indeed, whereas, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that during the recent war conscientious objectors, in the main, were fairly dealt with. Surely now we are entitled to go a stage further. During a war feeling develops and men hate each other on the least pretext, and as a result of that it is impossible to reason calmly or sanely in dealing with those people who are opposed to war. I speak with some little experience of the tribunals during the first and second world wars.
The Minister has made provision in the new Bill that the tribunals must be impartial, but with the best will in the world the Minister is bound to select people who, in the main, accept the policy laid down by His Majesty's Government, and accept the idea that the young men of the country should engage in compulsory military service. That is the first handicap that a young person meets when he goes to the tribunal, and therefore it is extremely difficult for the tribunal properly to understand the approach of the young man who is opposed to war. Let me put the point about the young man who comes before the tribunal. Only those who have appeared in the courts know how a young person can be completely tongue-tied and unable to express himself. Those of us who have appeared at the tribunals on their behalf have recognised on many occasions that we have lost cases because, in the first place, the tribunal set out to prove to the young man that he was taking a wrong step.
I do not want to be unfair and say that trick questions are put, but questions of an amazing kind are sometimes put to young men who are turned down because they are unable to prove that they have a conscientious objection to war. They appear before the appellate tribunal. If the atmosphere at the local tribunal is difficult for these young men, it is much more so before the appellate tribunal, and they are again turned down. If, after that failure, they refuse to submit themselves for medical examination, they get three months' imprisonment, or more. I have known a young man serve his entire 12 months, subject to the usual remission, which means that he serves nine months. In the latter stages of the war there was a very considerable reduction in that kind of treatment.
It may be said that if we put into the Bill a period of one month, or even three months, a young man will say, "I will do a month, or three months, in prison, and when I come out I will be free"; but I do not think it works in that way at all. When a young man makes up his mind to appeal as a conscientious objector he faces the opposition and hostility of the people in his own area whose sons are going into the Army. He may well jeopardise his prospect of a career in a trade or profession, and no young man does that lightly. He may also have to submit to pressure from his parents. I know it may be argued that parents give their sons liberty to make up their own minds in these cases, but that is not always the whole of the story. Environment counts.
If the young man appears before the court, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the sheriff sending him to prison for 12 months. It is possible for the young man to serve the entire sentence. He comes out, and again has the right to appear before the local tribunal. The local tribunal turns him down again. I have appeared at tribunals when it has been made quite clear to the young man that because he served nine months in prison was no evidence that he had a conscientious objection to military service. The young man has been rejected again, and then has gone before the appellate tribunal, only to be turned down again. That is the cat-and-mouse procedure.
I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary. What he said would not be accepted


by everybody in the House. As a comparatively new Member I hope I may say that I know of no Minister who is more frank and open, and from whom we can more expect that his word is his bond, when he makes a statement. I ask him to look at the proposed new Clause again. Those who have proposed it are not rigid in saying that we should send thee men to prison for three months and then let them go. Surely, with all the talent on the Front Bench, capable of piloting very intricate Measures through the House such as the Town and Country Planning Bill—I would say that people who can formulate a Bill of that kind—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Now the hon. Member is getting slightly out of Order.

Mr. Carmichael: I am extremely pleased, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you call me only slightly out of Order after my last experience on this Bill. My only

point was that if Members on the Government Front Bench are capable of piloting Bills of that character, surely it is not beyond the Minister of Labour and his legal advisers to find a form of words that will be satisfactory to the entire House in this matter.

I make that plea. Let us give the young person the benefit of the doubt, if we have put him before two tribunals and before the sheriff. It that is appreciated, it might be possible tonight to find a form of words that will save the situation. If we cannot do so, perhaps it, the later stages tomorrow it might be possible for us to give satisfaction to these young men, who are entitled to get the benefit, if they have shown a conscientious objection to military service.

Question put, "That the Clause be read d Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 253.

Division No. 221.]
AYES
[8.28 p.m.


Ayles, W. H.
Gruffydd, Prof. W [...]
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bowen, R.
Harris, H. Wilson
Shurmer, P


Byers, Frank
John, W.
Stephen, C.


Carmichael, James
Kendall, W D
Timmons, J


Collins, V. J
McGhee, H. G.
Yates, V F


Cove, W. G
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)



Cunningham, P.
Rankin, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Mr. Sidney Silverman and


Granville E (Eye)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Mr. J. Hudson




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Chater, D
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)


Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Agnew, Cmdr P. G.
Clarke, Col. R. S
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Aitken, Hon. Max
Clitherow, Dr. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A V.
Coldrick, W.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Colman, Miss G. M
Gage, C.


Attewell, H. C.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Gammans, L. D.


Austin, H. Lewis
Cook, T. F.
Gibbins, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Corvedale, Viscount
Gibson, C. W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B
Crawley, A.
Gilzean, A.


Bacon, Miss A
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Baird J.
Davies, Hadyn (St Pancras, S.W.)
Gooch, E. G.


Balfour, A
De la Bère, R.
Gordon-Walker, P C.


Barton, C
Delargy, H. J
Greenwood, Rt. Hon A. (Wakefield)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Diamond, J.
Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)


Bechervaise, A. E
Dobbie, W
Grey, C. F.


Bellenger, Rt Hon. F J
Dodds, N. N.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Berry, H.
Dodds-Parker, A D
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Bing, G. H. C
Donovan, T.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Binns, J.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Gunter, R. J.


Blackburn, A. R
Drewe, C.
Guy, W. H.


Blyton, W. R
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Haire, John E (Wycombe)


Boardman, H.
Durbin, E. F M
Hall, W. G.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)
Dye, S
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H W
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Bower, N.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hardy, E. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, J A
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Harrison, J.


Bramall, E. A.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Evans, S N. (Wednesbury)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)
Ewart, R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C


Brown, George (Belper)
Fairhurst, F.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Buchan-Hepburn, P G T.
Farthing, W. J.
Hicks, G.


Burke, W. A.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)
Holman, P.


Challen, C
Foot, M. M.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Champion, A. J
Foster, W. (Wigan)
House, G.




Hubbard, T.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Hudson, Rt Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Mayhew, C. P.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S W.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Medland, H. M
Snadden, W. M.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Soskice, Maj. Sir [...]


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Messer, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Moody, A. S.
Steele, T.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Morgan, Dr H. B
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Jay, D. P. T.
Mort, D. L.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)


Jager, G. (Winchester)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E
Studholme, H. G.


Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)
Moyle, A
Summerskill, Dr Edit)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Naylor, T E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)
Teeling, William


Keenan, W
Nicholson, G.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Kenyon, C.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Kerr, Sir J Graham
Noble, Comdr. A. H P
Thorp, Lt.-Col R A F


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E
Noel-Buxton Lady
Thurtle, Ernest


Kinley, J.
Oldfield, W. H.
Titterington, M [...]


Kirby, B. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Tolley, L.


Langford-Holt, J
Paget, R. T.
Tomlinson, Rt Hon G


Lavers, S.
Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)
Touche, G. C.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Legge-Bourke, Maj E A. H
Pargiter, G. A
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Leonard, W
Parkin, B. T
Vernon, Maj. W F


Leslie, J. R.
Pearson, A.
Walkden, E.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Peart, Capt T. F.
Walker-Smith, D.


Lewis, T (Southampton)
Popplewell, E.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Lindgren, G. S.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Warbey, W N.


Lindsay, M (Solihull)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Ward, Hon G. R


Linstead, H. N.
Proctor, W T.
Watson, W M.


Lipson, D L.
Pursey, Cmdr H.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)


Logan, D. G.
Randall, H. E
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Low, Brig. A. R. W
Ranger, J.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Rees-Williams, D. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Reid, Rt Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


McAdam, W.
Reid, T (Swindon)
Wilkes, L.


Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)
Rhodes, H.
Wilkins, W. A.


McEntee, V. La T.
Rogers, G. H. R
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Ropner, Col. L.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, W R. (Heston)


McKinlay, A S.
Savory, Prof D. L
Williamson, T


McLeavy, F
Scott-Elliot W.
Willis, E.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Segal, Dr. S
Woodburn, A


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Shackleton, E. A. A
Woods, G. S


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Sharp, Granville
Wyatt, W.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Shawcross, Rt Hn Sir H. (St. Helens)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Simmons, C J.
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Marquand, H. A.
Skeffington, A. M
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Marsden, Capt. A
Skinnard, F W
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. S[...]

CLAUSE 1.—(Liability to be called up for service.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Before calling upon the right hon. Baronet the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) to move the Amendment, after "Britain," to insert "or Northern Ireland," I have been instructed by Mr. Speaker to say that this Amendment has been selected, in spite of the long discussion in Committee, solely on the ground that hon. Members, by mischance, failed to record their votes in the Lobby, and it is, therefore, called for a Division only.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: I beg to move, in page r, line II, after "Britain," to insert "or Northern Ireland."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker rose—

An Hon. Member: Where is the seconder?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I ask hon. Members to leave this to the Chair? In this case I happen to be right.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 230.

Division No. 222.]
AYES
[8.40 p.m.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Dower, E. L G. (Caithness)
Maitland, Comdr. J W


Baldwin, A. E.
Gage, C.
Marlowe, A. A H


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V
Marsden, Capt A


Bowen, R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Maude, J. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, J A
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Neill, W F (Belfast, N.)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R (Glasgow, C.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H


De la Bère, R.
McCallum, Maj. D
Pickthorn, K


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr P W
Macley, Hon J S
Ponsonby, Col. C E




Price-White, Lt.-Col. D
Savory, Prof. D. L
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Raikes, H. V.
Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)



Ropner, Col. L.
Sutcliffe, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Touche, G. C.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen




and Sir Walter Smiles




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Paget, R. T.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gunter, R. J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Alexander, Rt. Hon A. V.
Guy, W. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Allen, A. C (Bosworth)
Hall, W. G.
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Anderson, P. (Whitehaven)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pearson, A.


Attewell, H. C.
Hardy, E. A.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Austin, H. Lewis
Harrison, J.
Porter, E (Warrington)


Awbery, S. S
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Ayles, W H.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Hicks, G.
Proctor, W. T.


Bacon, Miss A.
Holman, P.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Baird, J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Randall, H. E.


Balfour, A
House, G.
Ranger, J.


Barton, C
Hoy, J.
Rankin, J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hubbard, T.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Berry, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton. W.)
Richards, R.


Binns, J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Blackburn, A. R.
Jay, D. P. T.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Blyton, W. R.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Boardman, H.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Segal, Dr. S.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
John, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Bramall, E. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Sharp, Granville


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Shurmer, P.


Brown, George (Belper)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Buchanan, G.
Keenan, W
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Burke, W. A.
Kendall, W. D.
Simmons, C. J.


Carmichael, James
Kenyon, C.
Skeffington, A. M.


Champion, A. J.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Chetwynd, G. R.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Skinnard, F. W


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Kinley, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Coldrick, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Collindridge, F.
Lavers, S.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Colman, Miss G. M
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sparks, J. A.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Leonard, W.
Steele, T.


Cook, T. F.
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Corvedale, Viscount
Levy, B. W
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)


Cove, W. G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Cunningham, P.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lipson, D. L.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Delargy, H. J.
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, Ernest


Diamond, J.
McAdam, W.
Titterington, M. F.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V La T
Tolley, L.


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Donovan, T.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Driherg, T. E. N.
Mackay, R. W. C (Hull, N.W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McKinlay, A. S
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Durbin, E. F. M.
McLeavy, F.
Viant, S. P.


Dye, S.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Walkden, E.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Warbey, W. N.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Marples, A. E.
Watson, W. M.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Marquand, H. A.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mayhew, C. P.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Ewart, R.
Medland, H. M
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Fairhurst, F.
Mellish, R. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Farthing, W. J.
Messer, F.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Mitchison, G R.
Wilkes, L.


Foot, M. M.
Monslow, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Willey, P T. (Sunderland)


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Morley, R.
Williamson, T.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Willis, E.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mort, D. L.
Woodburn, A


Gibbins, J.
Mulvey, A.
Woods, G. S.


Gilzean, A.
Nally, W.
Wyatt, W.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Naylor, T. E.
Yates, V. F.


Gooch, E. G.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Zilliacus, K.


Grey, C. F.
Oldfield, W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Orbach, M.
Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

CLAUSE 2.—(Whole-time and part-time service.)

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out from "deemed," to the end of line 22, and to insert:

"(a) if his last service during that term was in the Royal Navy or the Royal Marines, to be entered for service in a Royal Naval Special Reserve which the Admiralty shall raise and maintain for the purposes of this Act; or 
(b) if that last service was in the Regular Army, to be enlisted for service in the Territorial Army or the Army Reserve, as the Army Council may direct; or
(c) if that last service was in the Regular Air Force, to be enlisted for service in the Air Force Reserve."

The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) will remember that he submitted a case, especially about the words "according as." I promised to look into the matter. I have considered it carefully, and as the hon. and learned Member was perhaps a little upset with me earlier in this evening, I hope that he will now be gratified that I have adopted the entire wording which he put upon the Order Paper.

Mr. H. Strauss: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for accepting this Amendment, which was designed, like all my Amendments, to improve the Bill. The other Amendment which I moved on the same occasion was accepted at once by the right hon. Gentleman, and in those circumstances I was the more astonished that he moved the Closure earlier this evening in order to stop me from making a two minutes' speech.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Liability to complete interrupted service.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out Subsection (2).
This Amendment is being moved again with a view to trying to obtain a satisfactory explanation. It was moved in Committee by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low), and I do not think that on that occasion we received a very satisfactory answer to the points which were raised. The Government have now had time to reflect upon the issues raised, and I hope that we shall get more

satisfaction. This Subsection covers two points. The first is, as I understand it, that it is to be left to each Service authority to define by regulations what term of service in an auxiliary Force shall be deemed to be equivalent to whole-time service or part-time service under this Bill. It is desirable that there should be some co-ordination between the Service authorities on this issue, and also that people who volunteer for service in the auxiliary Forces in lieu of part-time service should be informed, and be able to inform themselves, at the time they volunteer, of the extent to which such service in the auxiliary Services will count in lieu of part-time service. That covers the first point on which we should like some information. We should much prefer if, instead of leaving this to the Service authorities, the definition were incorporated in the Bill.
Under the second part of the Clause, anyone who has served in an auxiliary Force and is then transferred back to complete part-time service, is only allowed to count a maximum of 15 days of his auxiliary service in any one year towards his part-time service. I should like to know what justification there is for that. It seems to me in one way to impose a penalty upon those who volunteer for service in the auxiliary Forces, though I recognise the difficulty with which one has to contend. It is that of avoiding the possibility of someone in the auxiliary Forces doing so much service in one year, and then leaving those Forces and saying, "I have done enough. I need not do any more in the next five years for which I should otherwise have been liable for part-time service." It ought to be possible to make a fairer adjustment between service in the auxiliary Forces, and service under this Measure.

Brigadier Low: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to make a few remarks on the number of days' training which a volunteer is allowed to count. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War may think he need not listen to me because, for a reason which he may remember, I have had to make my argument twice already. It was in the middle of the night when I first made my point on This matter, and then for some reason the right hon. Gentleman was not present. I would like him now to explain why it is


that he appears to injure the volunteer under this Subsection. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, he is allowing the volunteer to count only 15 days in each year, whereas the National Service man is allowed to count 21 days. If the volunteer is in the Territorial Army, and is to be considered efficient and earn his bounty in any one year, he has to do the equivalent of 22½ days' training. The right hon. Gentleman agreed with me when I last put that point and I think he will agree again. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to encourage volunteers, why allow them to count only 15 days? The House is entitled to an explanation.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to be put in the position, from the point of view of the Army, whereby men who volunteer can get rid of their 60 days' training liability, in the course of the first two years. Surely, there has been time, between the Committee stage, when the same arguments were put forward, and now, in which to think out some Amendment to this Subsection, or a new Clause if necessary, which would have the effect of allowing them to count at least that period which is required by the Territorial Army Regulations? The right hon. Gentleman may say that he wants men who are volunteering for the Territorial Army to stay in it for four years, and he may go on to say that 60 days divided by four comes to 15. That seems to be good mathematics, and it may be the explanation of the choice of 15 days for this Subsection, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a good argument for distinguishing between the volunteer and the National Service man to the detriment of the volunteer, as in this Subsection. I think that, on the points made by my hon. and learned Friend and the point which I have put now, the right hon. Gentleman has a certain case to answer.

Mr. Bellenger: The real reason why we want Subsection (2) is to avoid the possibility of those men who do not complete their full-time service under this Bill, but who for various reasons go on to one of the reserves—particularly in the Royal Air Force—being able, as it were, to compress their reserve liability, which is now spread over six years under this Bill, into two years, thereby escaping their obliga-

tion to serve in the reserve for six years. The point made by the hon. and gallant Member about the association between the voluntary Territorial Force and those who have to give their services under this Bill, does not arise, because volunteers are not covered by this Bill at all. It is only those called up under this Bill, who have to do this 60 days' period of reserve service spread over six years.

Brigadier Low: Surely, we are dealing here with a man who, for some reason or other, has accepted the obligation of a volunteer in an auxiliary Force; and, surely, that man has accepted greater obligations than those imposed by this Subsection.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I think that Subsection (2) has to be read in conjunction with the whole of Clause 5, which deals with liability to complete interrupted service. It may well be that a National Service man, with a liability under this Bill for 12 months whole-time service, will go on reserve, for one reason or another, and escape a certain amount of whole-time and part-time service, for various reasons. For instance, in the R.A.F., it may not be necessary to keep a man for the full 12 months, and we may let him go to the Air Force Reserve, when he will volunteer to do more than he would ordinarily be liable for under this Bill. We do not want him to be able to claim that part-time service in the first year or two. The whole purpose of this Bill is to make sure that the National Service man after his full-time service shall be kept up to date for six years with the reserve training. There is also the question of the bounty for those who volunteer. It might be that not only would the National Service man be volunteering for the Reserve, but he would be able to get the whole of the 60 days concentrated into the first two years. That might make him eligible for the bounty which is given to the volunteer Territorials who complete more than the number of drills which the National Service reservist will be obliged to do. For that reason we cannot accept the Amendment to omit Subsection (2). There was another Amendment advanced in Committee relating to the "cat and mouse" suggestion that it would be possible to call a man back if he had been discharged. That is governed by the


next Amendment to be moved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I hope that explanation will satisfy hon. Members opposite, and will enable them to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May 1, with the leave of the House, put a question to the right hon. Gentleman which might crystallise the position and enable us to be satisfied on the point? Supposing a man, having volunteered for the auxiliary service, does 21 days' service in the year, why should he not be allowed to count more than 15 of those days against his liability of 21 days' service in a year under Clause 2?

Mr. Bellenger: The reason why a person who has taken alternative part-time service on that basis is not to be allowed to reckon more than 15 days' training in one year towards the 60 days is because, on a volunteer footing, he can earn a bounty for attending hourly training periods and week-end camps outside the annual camp periods. That would make a distinction between the member of the Territorial Army who volunteers to do that, and a National Service man who has an obligation under this Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, to leave out Subsection (3), and to insert:
(3) The Minister may cause to be served on any person liable under this Section to be called upon to undertake part-time service a written notice specifying the term of part-time service which he is liable to perform, and, subject as hereinafter provided, that person shall after the expiration of the period of fourteen days after the service of the notice be deemed to be entered or enlisted for service in such force as may be specified in the notice:
Provided that if within the said period of fourteen days that person disputes his liability to be called upon to undertake part-time service, or the term of part-time service which he is shown by the notice to be liable to perform, and requires the Minister to refer the question in dispute to a referee, the notice shall not become operative to enter or enlist that person unless a referee selected by the Minister from a panel of persons nominated by the Lord Chancellor, after inquiring into and determining the question in dispute, directs that the notice shall become operative so to do on such date and for such term of part-time service as may be specified in the direction.
In the Committee stage we undertook to examine this matter and we put this Amendment down in the belief that it would meet all the points which hon.

Gentlemen on both sides asked us to consider. At this stage in dealing with this Amendment I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I also referred to the four Amendments to this Amendment which are down on the Order Paper. This proposed new Subsection has two points in it. The first is that the Minister of Labour and not the Service authority will issue the written notice. This means that if a man disputes his liability he can raise the matter with the Ministry, and in any event that is considered more appropriate since he is not in the Forces and he will be treated as a civilian and not as a man in the Forces.
The second point is that the written notice will not take effect until after a period of 14 days. If a man disputes his liability, and, what is more likely, disputes the amount of part-time service he is called upon to do within the 14 days, he may require the Minister to refer the question to arbitration. If he goes to arbitration the notice will not take effect until the referee has determined the question and the notice then shall specify the period of service and the date.
One of the Amendments provides that the matter shall automatically go to the referee if the man concerned raises any objection. We ask the House not to accept that proposal, because there will be many cases where the man will say, "I object to this"; he will have to fill up a form if he is going to appeal, we will look at it and say, "A mistake has been made here, there is no need for the matter to go any further," and we shall cancel the notice. But if, under the regulation, because a man raises an objection the case is automatically referred to a referee, it will waste the time of the man concerned and of everybody else. We want to leave an open course to the man, so that if we cannot settle the matter he can go to the referee if he wishes. It is obvious that if the Minister settles the case to the man's satisfaction, he will not want to go to the referee. It is only where we think we cannot settle it to the man's satisfaction that he will want to take the matter there.
It was suggested last time that the ordinary courts should be used. We are advised that we can hardly send these cases to a court of summary jurisdiction. because at that point neither an offence


nor a civil claim is involved summary courts usually deal with complaints or offences of some kind. We have provided here for another method. We suggest that there shall be a referee who will be selected by the Minister from a panel of persons nominated by the Lord Chancellor. That will take the matter out of any influence of the Ministry of Labour. All the Ministry will do will be to select somebody appropriate. by which I mean somebody appropriate in the locality. and so on. Therefore, disputed cases will be settled by an impartial referee, which is what was pressed for by hon. Members who raised this matter in Committee. I submit that this proposed new Subsection meets the points which have been raised. It would not be an advantage to accept the proposed Amendments to this Subsection, because we think a great deal of confusion and trouble would be created, and the new form of reference for settling these cases takes the matter out of the realm of any kind of suspicion

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman, who has met our arguments which we adduced on the Committee stage with regard to this point. We then put forward the argument that a man who disputed his liability to service under this Measure should have the matter determined not by a court-martial but by some other civil tribunal. We did not attach any particular importance to the adjudication being by a court of summary jurisdiction. We accept, and welcome, the two main points that the notice shall be served by the Minister, and that in the event of dispute the matter shall be adjudicated upon by the referee. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that we are in any way unappreciative of the manner in which he has met our main argument, by reason of the fact that we have put down Amendments to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. Although I do not want to press them, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to bear these arguments in mind. Under the proviso as it now stands if a person "disputes his liability"—those are the actual words in the proviso—the dispute may be oral or in writing. There is nothing in the proviso to say in what form it should be. Therefore, it appears to me that by leaving the words in this particular form, there might arise the difficulty that when trying to call up a man,

the Ministry would say "We have served you with a notice and you have not disputed it." The man would say, "I went to the Ministry of Labour Exchange, I found a clerk there and disputed it." He would find great difficulty in disproving that fact. Therefore I suggest there is some force in saying it should be a written notice, and probably stating the grounds for disputing that written notice. I think the right hon. Gentleman meant that when he said they would be required to fill up a form, but in fact that is not provided in the proviso, and strictly and legally the man affected could comply with this Clause by merely going along to the employment exchange and saying, "I dispute my liability."

Mr. Isaacs: When any person goes into an employment exchange it is the practice, when he goes to the counter, for a note to be made immediately of his name, address and the purpose of his visit. A note would be made, and quite definitely he would be asked for his particulars, so the matter would be recorded.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: That may well be a matter of good administration in the Ministry's employment exchanges, but I ask the Minister to look at it from the purely legal point of view. He will find, whether or not the form is filled in, that under the proviso as it now stands a man can bring himself within its terms by merely saying, "I dispute my liability." I do not press that, but I do ask him to consider it. I think it will improve the Bill, which is what we are all out for.
With regard to the other Amendments, the Minister will appreciate that the Clause as now drafted puts the burden upon the person disputing his liability to do two things. First of all, he must say, "I dispute my liability," either to serve or to serve to the extent required. He has then to fulfil the requirements of saying to the Minister "Refer it to the referee," and strictly, and in law, a man would not bring himself within this Clause, as amended, by merely saying, "I dispute my liability." Under the Clause as now drawn, with this new Subsection, it would be possible to have the case adjudicated upon and for his claim not to be regarded as liable for service to be rejected on the ground that he had not coupled with that claim a requirement that the matter should be referred to the


referee. That is the point of our Amendment. I quite agree that the Minister should have power, where he is satisfied that the man who is disputing liability is right, to admit that he is right without the matter going to a referee. I should have thought it was open to him to do that at any time without a statutory provision. As the proviso now stands, I emphasise that it puts the burden on the man disputing liability to say to the Minister, "Refer this to the referee," and if he does not say that to the Minister he does not bring himself within this Clause. They are two minor points. I merely ask the Minister to look at them and consider them, because I think they have some substance. I conclude by repeating my thanks to him for the way in which he has met us on these most important points.

Mr. Isaacs: I give an undertaking to look at the points which have been raised.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Calling up for training during part-time service.)

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, to leave out from "himself," to "cause," in line 26.
During the Committee stage my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) moved an Amendment which would have limited to a minimum of 14 days the period in which a notice could be cancelled with regard to the full-time Reserve training for which a man was called up. There was a very long and interesting Debate, and there was considerable support from all sides of the House for the general principle put forward by my hon. Friend, and I promised to look into the whole matter. The purpose of this Amendment and the following Amendment—in page 4, line 28, after "which," to insert "but not the date on which"—is to implement the decision of the Government after considering the Debate in Committee; that is to say, we shall not take power to cancel a notice as regards the day on which a man is called up for training, but we shall retain the power to vary the notice with regard to the place or time of day. In is argued that we shall be required to retain this—

9.15 p.m.

Colonel Ropner: On a point of Order. Are we taking the two Amendments together, this and the next in the name of

the right hon. Gentleman—in page 4, line 28, after "which," to insert "but not the date on which"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I have no objection, if the House wishes to take the two together.

Mr. Alexander: I am moving the first, as I said, but this and the other are both designed to meet the points put from all sides of the Committee during the Committee stage of the Bill.

Colonel Ropner: Are we taking them together?

Mr. Alexander: It is for Mr. Deputy Speaker to rule. I am perfectly happy to do so.

Colonel Ropner: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be addressing himself to the second Amendment. I do want the House to be clear whether we are taking the Amendments together or not Could the Chair tell us?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Yes, we will consider both Amendments together.

Mr. Alexander: As I was saying, we should leave out the power we had proposed to take to issue a notice cancelling the call-up. This was clearly desired by the Committee. But we must retain the power to vary the notice with regard to the time of the day and the place. Our intention is to meet the kind of emergency referred to in the Committee stage—as, for instance, a flood at the camp, or an outbreak of an infectious disease. In such an emergency, we think that the Service authority should make every possible endeavour to find an alternative place and, if necessary, should be able to vary the hour at which the man should join. In view of the consequences brought to the notice of the Committee, the upset of domestic life, possible repercussions upon industry, upon a works where special arrangements had been made because of the man's impending absence, and so on, we feel that we should do our best, not to cancel the call-up, but to vary the call-up; to call up the man to a different camp; or, if no other camp is available, to give the maximum amount of training we can under any emergency arrangements we might be able to make We feel we should do that rather than risk the domestic and industrial upsets to which


so much attention was drawn on the Committee stage. I hope the House will agree that we have met the point.

Mr. Pickthorn: On the material point, so far as I understand it, I think I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. On the matter of the language, at the risk of appearing pedantic and in some slight fear of seeming facetious, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the word "date." I do not think the word "date" really means—certainly it does not mean on historical documents, and so on, and I should not think it legally means—what it is desired to mean here, that is to say the day—Wednesday, or Thursday, or whatever it may be. The day is everything. "Given by Our hand at the Royal Palace of Westminster on Friday, being 16th day of May." I suggest that the word here ought really to be "day," or "hour," but not "date." I think what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to change the hour. Although I admit it is a very small point, I think, perhaps, it might be met.

Mr. Stanley: We on this side are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the point, but it was not in fact quite the point that we put. As a result of the discussion I think most of us had been impressed by the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that, in view of the possibility of an emergency, cancellation might be necessary, and we are also very grateful to him for the promise he gave then, which he has redeemed either perfectly or imperfectly—I must leave that to people more expert in the English language than I am—as to the meaning of deferment. I should, however, like some reassurance from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to dropping this power of cancellation. I think we accepted that there must be a power of cancellation in the case of a sudden flood or epidemic in the neighbourhood, or something else which made it impossible to hold the camp, and what we were pressing for was consideration of the possibility of compensation for the considerable domestic upset involved in such a cancellation.
I quite see that if it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to dispense altogether with the power of cancellation, the question of compensation is settled, but I must confess that I am not quite clear

how he can do without that power. Suppose that at the very last moment the camp is flooded or there is an epidemic. At any rate the battalion which has been called up for training cannot go to that particular place. Unless he can send them somewhere else on exactly the same date as the notice already bears, it seems that he is bound to want to cancel the notice. Will it really be very efficient, if something of this kind happens, to search hurriedly round for some other camp where equivalent training can be given or, if some other camp cannot be found, some other method of giving the 15 days' longterm training for which the men have been called up? Is the Minister really satisfied that in the event of an emergency occurring at the last moment he really can dispense with the notice of cancellation? Would it not be better at some further stage to think again in the direction of retaining the power of cancellation, which naturally is only used in the most exceptional circumstances, and considering the possibility of giving some compensation in case of hardship?

Mr. Chetwynd: As I moved the original Amendment on this, I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for meeting us. In fact he has gone beyond what we asked for. He has taken away all power to issue cancellations and we ought to be very grateful to him on that account. It is clear that if a situation should arise in which it is necessary to alter the date, place and time at which the men should be present, cancellation would be impossible because the men would already be on their way. His solution, therefore, seems to be to divert them to other training grounds or make other extempore arrangements to meet the case. I think we should leave the matter there for the Army authorities to do their best.

Colonel Ropner: I was not present when this matter was discussed in Committee and I understand the right hon. Gentleman has gone rather further than was suggested by those who moved the Amendment. I am rather at a loss to understand the position in which the right hon. Gentleman has now landed himself. If I understand the Subsection as it will read after this Amendment has been made, the Service authority concerned will have no power to cancel any notice which may have been issued, and moreover


cannot postpone the date. I ask the hon. Gentleman what the position would be if the Service authorities made a genuine mistake, for example, if they called up somebody who was very much too young, say a boy ten or eleven years old? In a case of that sort the Service authorities would probably have no chance of putting the mistake right.

Mr. Alexander: I should say that that position would be covered by the provisions relating to the young man in question. In that case we should certainly have to pay. There is no question of that. The case which was put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) has to be answered frankly. Naturally I would very much desire, as would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, to keep the original power that we had for cancellation, if no other considerations had to be taken into account. Those considerations were put before us by hon. Members from all sides during the Committee stage, and they had to be taken note of. There was the possibility of keeping the full power of cancellation, and of some unknown commitment and unknown machinery being set up to cover a whole range of compensation.
If such powers were given in the Statute, it might arise that the Service Departments would not be quite so careful in their use of the power of cancellation as they otherwise might be, particularly if they were covered by Parliamentary authority to pay compensation. We thought of that. We consulted people experienced in these matters. We thought that, in all the circumstances and in view of the likely economic position of this country in the next two or three, or even four, years, we should interfere as little as possible by way of dislocating industrial arrangements. We thought it was as well to take the whole plunge and to say we preferred not to cancel so that there would be no fear of industrial dislocation. It must be laid absolutely upon the Service authorities to make the best possible arrangements they can, if an emergency arises of the kind mentioned by various Members of the Committee.
If we were to go the other way, we would have to meet an unknown volume of compensation, although we might be sure that the Service authorities would want at all times to get the maximum benefit from

the period of call-up, and that they would not use cancellation except in the case of extremity. Let me therefore say that we have looked into the matter from every angle, and that this is the best we can do.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 28, after "which," insert:
but not the date on which."—[Mr. Alexander.]

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out Subsection (3).
The Amendment relates to the Subsection which prescribes the sanction for failure to comply with a training notice. The House will recollect that there was some confusion at an earlier stage as to what the training notices were, in respect which the Subsection provides the sanction. I trust that if for the sake of clarity I refer to a later Amendment on the Order Paper, I shall not incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, because it will be the case, if the House accepts a later Government Amendment, that a training notice will be a notice calling up persons for not less than six days' training. Therefore this Subsection provides the sanction for a failure in fact to go to camp for a period of six days or more, and it is thus a somewhat more serious question than that which the House debated earlier this afternoon, concerning sanctions for failure to do drills.
The House had at an earlier stage a wealth of advice from the Front Bench opposite on what this Subsection meant. That advice would have been more impressive had it been consistent. But we have now been informed by the Attorney-General, at, I think, his third attempt, that what it means is that persons who fail to comply with a training notice, will be dealt with as absentees or deserters and tried by court martial. The difficulty has arisen from the fact that this Subsection does not say that in terms. It merely provides that such persons shall be dealt with in the same manner a certain other persons specified in the Subection. That of course has been the cause of the difficulty which has taxed even the ingenuity of the Attorney-General but which apparently every conscript in this country is expected to understand at the first time of asking. I do not say they will not,


but it is perhaps a little harsh and oppressive to expect every male 18-year-old in the country to be slightly better informed on the law of England than the principal legal adviser of the Crown.
I suggest that it is objectionable to provide for penalties of this sort in legislation by reference. If it is desired, as I understand it is, to lay it down that people who fail to comply with these training notices shall be tried by court martial on the serious charges of desertion or absence, it would be much fairer to say so, in order that people can know exactly where they are. It is surely a platitude to say that penal legislation should make the penalties quite clear. After all, the object of such legislation is to deter people from the commission of offences, and people are much more likely to be deterred if they know precisely what the deterrent penalty is. The object of this Amendment is not to deprive training notices of any sanction. On the contrary, it is to press the point that this Subsection should state in itself what the penalties are, and should not merely invite attention, to a wealth of previous legislation. The major point of the Amendment is that it is desirable that the penalties for breaches of this Bill should be in the Bill. When that point was put at a previous stage I understood that it received the approval of the Minister of Defence, because he said:
I have since said that I would see if the Clause could be put in order.
He went on to say:
I said that I would consider the Clause, and examine it so that it might be made to work properly."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 7th May, 1947; Vol. 437 c. 675–6.]
So far as I can see on the Order Paper, the right hon. Gentleman has not implemented that promise. He has certainly put nothing on the Order Paper to make work properly a Clause which as he himself recognises in the sentence I have quoted, does not work properly. Therefore my hon. Friends and I have thought it necessary to put this Amendment on the Order Paper with a view to eliciting from the Government, first, a clear statement of what these penalties are, and, secondly, what reasons there are for the Government's failure to make this Clause work properly, if I may adopt the right hon. Gentleman's phrase. We ask them to put in this Bill for all concerned

to see, the penalties for those who break this provision.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not wish to paint the lily. The point has been put very brilliantly by my hon. Friend and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will give us some satisfaction.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has on this occasion adopted his favourite, and I venture to think perhaps his most successful form of argument, that of putting up his own particular nine-pin and then proceeding to his own satisfaction, if not to the satisfaction of anybody else, to knock it down. It is true that I have on two, and possibly on three, previous occasions in Committee advised on the effect of this Subsection. On each of those occasions I advised the Committee in. exactly the same sense, and I shall so advise the House now, for the fourth time. If hon. Members opposite were unable to understand my advice that is, of course, a matter for which I cannot hold myself personally responsible. The doubt which arose in regard to this matter during previous discussions on this Clause was not in regard to the penalties arising under this Subsection at all, but in regard to the training notice. That was the matter in regard to which there was some discussion, and that was the matter in regard to which my right hon. Friend and I undertook to look at the Clause again and clear it up. That is the purpose of the Amendment to which the hon. Member has referred which is put down on the Order Paper to a later Clause in the Bill—the Amendment which will define what a training notice is. The effect of the Subsection as it stands is that a man who fails to comply with a notice calling him up for annual camp, or for a period of continuous training which will be six days or more, will be liable to the penalties imposed under the existing law on men who fail to comply with a calling-up notice, or fail to comply with an embodiment notice—that is a penalty not exceeding two years' penal servitude after trial by a court-martial. That is the purpose of this Clause and, in those circumstances. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am surprised at the attitude the right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken on this matter, when he says that he was not asked the very question that my hon. Friend put just now—

The Attorney-General: Not "asked." I said it was not raised

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It he says it was not raised, and that the whole point was with regard to the question of the training notice, then his recollection is really inaccurate, as he will discover if he looks at HANSARD and finds the relevant passage—

The Attorney-General: Which is it?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Column 685. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has really not met the point which has been put here. If the punishment for an offence of failing to comply with a training notice is a maximum of two years' penal servitude awarded by court martial, would it not he far better to put it in this Bill where everyone could read it, rather than to say:
A person who fails to comply with a training notice shall be liable to be apprehended and unless he has some reasonable excuse punished in the same manner as a person belonging to an auxiliary force failing to appear when called into actual or permanent service or on embodiment.
When one looks at the definition of "auxiliary force" later in the Bill one sees that it covers the Royal Naval Special Reserve, the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, the Territorial Army, the Army Reserve, the Air Force Reserve, the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve or the Auxiliary Air Force. I dare say the right hon. and learned Gentleman could tell us how many law books the individual affected would have to consult to determine what penalty he might be incurring if he failed to comply with a training notice. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to incorporate his own words in this Measure, and to put in "two years' penal servitude," so that it shall be quite clear.

Mr. H. Strauss: I wish again to raise the point which I raised on a previous occasion, but which the right hon. and learned Gentleman may have overlooked. That is whether a training notice within the meaning of Subsection (3) is quite certain to mean a training notice as varied by any supplementary notice. I do not think it

is quite obvious that that is the case, but if it is not, the Attorney-General will see that his penalty Clause fails in its object. in those cases where a supplementary notice has been given varying the original training notice. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got my point?

The Attorney-General: I have got the point.

Mr. Strauss: It would be quite fantastic to prosecute a man for failing to comply with a training notice if, in fact, a supplementary notice had been served on him varying the notice and making it clear that he was not supposed to comply with it in those terms. On the other hand, if the words "a training notice" in Subsection (3) do not mean a training notice as varied by the supplementary notice, that, I think, will be the effect. I do not know if the right hon. and learned Gentleman can satisfy me straight away on this matter. I do not want to be in the least dogmatic. Whether it does or does not mean a notice as varied, I am certain he will agree that unless it does, some further amendment will be necessary.

Captain Marsden: I support this Amendment. I think this Clause is a bad Clause whichever way we look at it. It starts off by saying that if a person fails he
shall be liable to be apprehended.
I am not versed in legal language, but why not say, "shall be apprehended"? If the notice is served, he is liable to serve, and there is no particular reason why he should not be apprehended. Then, unless he has a reasonable excuse, he will be punished. Is there any court in the land which would punish him if he had a reasonable excuse? What is the object of putting in all that sort of stuff? It would be far more effective, and would produce a better result on the brain of the ordinary conscript, if he knew what he might get for trying to evade a calling-up notice. In many parts of King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions various types of offences are quoted and it is stated in the case of some offences that the punishment will be at the maximum, death, and at the minimum, some such punishment as an afternoon's drill. If the ordinary conscript sees it stated in black and white that if he gets a notice and tries to get


away with it, he is liable to two years penal servitude, far fewer people will fail to turn up on the date when they are due.

9.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) raised this point during the discussion in Committee. I felt then, and still feel, that the variation will not really affect the decision, and that the training notice will remain the training notice, as varied by any subsequent provision. I feel confident that the Clause is all right in that respect. So far as the other aspect of the matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) is concerned, I see that he himself set out with great clarity, in the course of one of his many addresses to the Committee, what the various penalties arising out of this Clause would be. I followed by saying:
I have spoken only once on this Clause so far, and I do not propose to repeat what I said then, in regard to it. The advice which I gave to the House then…was correct. The hon. Member correctly apprehended the effect.…
I went on to repeat what he had said. Then the hon. and learned Member was good enough to say:
I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his explanation.…It was clear and lucid.
He has raised the point in regard to making clear in this Bill what the actual penalties are.

Mr. Pickthorn: If the Attorney-General will forgive me, since he has quoted those words, I think that in decency and fairness to my hon. and learned Friend he should quote the next ones, in which he said:
…I hope it will be possible to put the penalty in the Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1947; Vol. 437. C. 685–6.]

The Attorney-General: If the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) had not been so eager to make his own voice heard, and had waited until I finished my sentence, he would have heard me say that. It is not a very convenient method of legislation to have to set out in the body of this Bill all the different Statutes—and unfortunately there are quite a number of them—which deal with this matter. On the other hand,

I take the point of the hon. and learned Member that it is not very convenient for those who may be affected by the Bill to have to refer, as he successfully referred, to the various Statutes under which the penalty arises. We will certainly look at this. If we can find a convenient way of embodying the different penalties, we will do so. I will not give a specific undertaking, but we will certainly look at it with considerable sympathy.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of what the Attorney-General has now said as to consideration being given once again, I hope more successfully, to the possibility of incorporating in the Clause the precise penalties it imposes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, to leave out "provided by," and to insert "notified to him under."
This is a simple Amendment. The words in this particular Subsection to which we object are as follow:
If at any time during a person's term of part-time service any change occurs in his name or address, he shall forthwith notify the change to such person and in such mariner as may be provided by regulations of the Service Authority.
It is imposing an undue obligation on the person concerned that it should be put upon him to discover what is in a Service regulation. He is, after all, a civilian, or is following a civilian occupation, and it will be extremely difficult for him at the time to discover what is in Service regulations. I suggest that the onus should be placed on the Service of notifying him what those regulations are with regard to the change of address. I am greatly encouraged by seeing nodding going on on the opposite benches. In that optimistic mood, I propose my Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for the reasons so lucidly expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend. Being not unaffected by the vigorous movements on the opposite side of the House to which he has referred, I content myself with formally seconding the Amendment.

Mr. Bellenger: I am much obliged for the brevity and lucidity with which the case has been presented. I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Transitional provisions.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 5, line 45, after "if," to insert:
he has not attained the age of thirty-six years and is.
This is really a drafting Amendment. We moved an Amendment on the Committee stage to put this limit in an earlier Clause. I think it is desirable that it should appear also in this Clause to make it absolutely clear that the liability to be called up shall not continue to exist until a man reaches his century and perhaps beyond.

Brigadier Head: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Isaacs: I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 6, line 2, to leave out "and paragraphs 2 and 3."
This and the following Amendment are drafting Amendments which I promised to introduce on the Committee stage. They are designed to make the Bill fit the concessions we made to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 4, leave out "they apply," and insert "it applies."—[Mr. Alexander.]

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert:
(2) No person who has been entered or enlisted under the National Service Acts before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and is serving in the armed forces of the Crown under those Acts at the commencement of this Act shall be required to continue to serve therein after the commencement of this Act.
After the success with which our last two Amendments have met, I should like to think that in this respect, with this more important Amendment, we might score a "hat trick." I say that, because all we are seeking to do here is to put into statutory form a pledge which the Government have given already. That pledge is contained in Paragraph  of the White Paper "Call Up To The Forces in 1947 and 1948" Cmd. 6831. A

White Paper has not the sanctity of the Statute Book and, although it may appear unusual in these days, Ministers do come and go—[Interruption]—and will go. We think it desirable that this pledge should be recorded in the most formal manner possible, that is, in an Act of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman, having made the pledge, wishes to adhere to it, as I am sure he does, I cannot see what possible convincing arguments he can put forward for resisting the incorporation of that pledge in an Act of Parliament. Therefore, I hope that he will now accept this Amendment, which we discussed at some length when it was moved on the Committee stage.

Mr. Pickthorn: I wonder if we might have your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Are we to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 6, line 12, to insert:
(3) No person who has been entered or enlisted for service in the Armed Forces of the Crown under the National Service Acts after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-six, and before the commencement of this Act shall be required to serve therein under those Acts for a period longer than the appropriate period in accordance with the Schedule to this Act (Periods of service for men called up in 1947 and 1948).
This Subsection shall come into force on the passing of this Act.
If so, may I refer very shortly to the Amendment on the Paper—page 10, line 38, at the end, to insert:
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act male British subjects called up for service in the year nineteen hundred and forty-five or the year nineteen hundred and forty-six shall be released after a period not exceeding two-and-a-half years.
This Subsection shall come into force on the passing of this Act.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member is seconding the Amendment, it might be for the convenience of the House to take the two together.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. I did not refer to the Amendment in page 6, line 12. If it is convenient to discuss that Amendment at the same time, I should like to say a few words about it. I understood that I was dealing only with the Amendment in page 6, line 7.

Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. and learned Member had connected his Amendment with the Amendment to line 12. If not, we had better deal with them separately. Perhaps some hon. Member will second the first Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: I did not wish to disturb the learned Attorney-General any more than I could possibly avoid. I beg formally to second the Amendment.

Brigadier Low: I should like to add a point or two to what my hon. and learned Friend has said. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the arguments used on another occasion when this Amendment was pressed. On that occasion his only defence for his action in refusing it was that he thought it was undesirable to give statutory effect in the Bill to a pledge given by the Government. I can imagine that the reason why he thinks it is undesirable is because the Government would like to treat the age and length of service principle on an administrative basis. I cannot however understand why he should like to treat like that the amount of service which has to be put in by the man now in the Forces, when he was so very careful, right at the beginning of the Committee stage, to treat the length of service of those who were to be called up under this Bill on a statutory basis, even when he had the power to treat it on an administrative basis. It seems to me that the Government have used this argument entirely to suit their own ends. Here is a pledge which one would imagine the Government would honour. Why, then, cannot it be put in statutory form?

Mr. Alexander: I would say, with regard to both these Amendments—the one which has been moved and the other which has been referred to—that I regret very much that I feel unable to accept them. I am sorry that all the arguments adduced in the course of the Committee stage, resisting the suggestion which was then made, did not carry sufficient weight, and I will try to repeat the main points now. In the first place, with regard to the Amendment to secure the insertion of these words in the Bill, it is really irrelevant to the purpose of the Bill. This is a Bill to set up powers for national service in peacetime of men who will not be called to the colours until after 1st January, 1949, and this is an attempt to bring into the Bill certain specific provisions, with regard both to the men who are already being dealt with under the age and service groups release scheme, that is those who were enlisted before 1947, and also with regard to personnel enlisted in 1947 and 1948, special conditions in respect of whom have already

been considered and accepted nemine contradicente by the House in the White Paper which has been quoted.
With regard to the Amendment which refers to men called up in 1947 and 1948, the actual terms fixed for their service were two years, tapering down to 18 months, and the conditions are clearly set out in the Command Paper. In respect of those personnel, I have given a specific pledge than no one called up in 1947 and 1948, shall be retained to serve a period which will continue after the end of the first period of service of men called up on 1st January, 1949, under this Bill. I am unable, I am sorry to say, to accept what would be the logical outcome of the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member and which would be put into a Schedule for that would impose fixed dates as set out in the Schedule.
10.0 p.m.
In the current interim period it is impossible with the rapid run down of the Forces and especially of the Army to put these things down month by month. I gave the pledge and I repeat it that with few exceptions all these men will be so treated that their service will be tapered off so as not to require any of them to serve after the end of 1949. In the tapering process, which we ask the House to leave to the Government in the interests of the needs of the Services, men called up in 1947 and 1948 will benefit to some extent by a shorter period of service than they expected to be called up to perform. If they are still not satisfied about that I would remind the House in addition that none of these men will be called up for compulsory part-time training in the following six years as those who are called up after 1st January, 1949, will be. As regards the men referred to in the first Amendment—

Mr. Speaker: I have called only the first Amendment, and I have decided to take the second Amendment separately.

Mr. Alexander: I give the assurance to the House that the pledge will be carried out, and I also want to assure the House that it is absolutely essential in the interests of the Services that the matter be left to those performing the administration who will arrange for the tapering off of the service of these men. I feel certain that hon. Members will


accept that decision and will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Hollis: I am at a loss to understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument when he says he is unable to accept this Amendment. I cannot see how the word "unable" can be used in this context. The right hon. Gentleman has argued that this Amendment is irrelevant to the purpose of the Bill, but with all respect, if you, Mr. Speaker, saw fit to call this Amendment I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman can argue that it is irrelevant to the purpose of the Bill. As for his further argument about the fixed periods and the Government being unable to commit themselves to the release of people in the present state of the world, I cannot see what bearing that has upon the Amendment. The Amendment does not lay down the precise amount. It lays down that no man
shall be required to continue to serve after the commencement of this Act,
which is precisely the time for which the right hon. Gentleman has given his pledge that the men will not be required to serve. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he seems to be ignorant of the meaning of the word "unable." He did not attempt to mislead the House, but when he said he was "unable" to do this, it is simply something which is untrue.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), I am astonished at the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I do not think I misrepresent him when I say that he said he accepted the purpose of the Amendment, and indeed that the Government would carry it out, but that it was irrelevant to the purpose of this Bill, to put in this provision. He supported that view by saying that this Bill dealt with people called up after 1st January, 1949. If the right hon. Gentleman had the most rudimentary knowledge of this Bill he would know that it is full of detailed provisions affecting the people at present serving, and people who will be called up between now and 1st January, 1949. The right hon. Gentleman can look at Clause 15 which, as the Bill provides,
shall come into force on the passing of this Act.
That is the provision dealing with people called up at the age of 17½. Or he might

look at the detailed and elaborate amendments to existing legislation contained in Clause 17, all of which
shall come into force on the passing of this Act
When, by this very Bill, the right hon. Gentleman is amending the existing law under which people are being held and called up at this moment, he cannot get away from this Amendment by saying that it is irrelevant to the purpose of the Bill because it affects people called up before 1st January, 1949. The right hon. Gentleman is doing a rather dangerous thing. If he resists, as he is apparently doing, the attempt to put his Government's own pledge into statutory form, on grounds which I would describe as "piffle" and "poppycock"—I understand those are Parliamentary expressions—he will inevitably give rise in certain quarters to doubts as to the good faith of the Government in carrying out their pledge.

Mr. Frank Byers: I would like to clarify two points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence, because I am not sure that I understood him correctly. I understood him to say that he had given a pledge, but that, for various reasons, it was not possible to include it in statutory form. As I understood him, the pledge was that the service of certain people would be tapered off so that nobody who is now serving or is going to be called up under the present provisions will be serving after the end of 1949. That is very interesting, but it is an entirely different situation from what is considered in this Amendment.
As I understand it, this Amendment deals with those people who entered or enlisted before 1st January, 1947, and seeks to relieve them of national service from 1st January, 1949, and not from the last day of January, 1949. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman meant to mislead the House, but he has not answered this Amendment in any way. He is considering an entirely different class of people. I think I know the class of people whom he is considering. He is considering those who are going to be called up in January, 1948, which is dealt with in the next Amendment. Therefore, he has not answered this Amendment. If he is prepared to give a pledge that people who entered or enlisted before 1947 should be demobilised before 1st January, 1949,


he ought to give that pledge in addition to the one which he has given in relation to the next Amendment, and if he is prepared to give that pledge he ought to put it into statutory form.

Mr. Alexander: I think it is only right that I should reply to that last point, with the permission of the House. I was going on to deal with the second matter, when you, Mr. Speaker, pointed out that I was dealing, perhaps, with the wrong pledge, and perhaps I had got the two Amendments inverted. I would only say with regard to the people who were enlisted before the beginning of 1947, that they are covered by the age and service group procedure laid down in a White Paper which was presented to the House and which has been faithfully observed. I am unable to accept the Amendment proposed on their behalf, because it would not be to the benefit, but to the detriment, of the Services themselves. I have already explained that the run-down of the Forces already is so rapid that if we are to avoid completely unbalancing the organisation, we must adhere to the age and service groups scheme as it is now operating. Every one of the men covered by this Amendment knows which age and service group he is in. In the best interests of the Services themselves, I must ask the House to accept my advice, and not to accept this Amendment. I hope the House will accept my assurance that I am doing this in the best interests of the Services.

Mr. Stanley: The last intervention of the right hon. Gentleman has left me in

a slight difficulty. I think we have got confused between the Amendment we are now discussing and an Amendment which Mr. Speaker will call subsequently, because not only the first argument of the right hon. Gentleman but even his second argument seemed to be devoted to the Amendment we shall discuss later. This Amendment simply lays down what I understood, and what I thought the whole House had understood, was a pledge which the right hon. Gentleman had given. It asks for no change. It is not a question of tapering off or running down too quickly. It simply says that everybody who was in the Services before 1st January, 1947, will be out before 1st January, 1949. That, I understand, was the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman. That being so, I do not see the relevance of his last argument, that he could not accept this Amendment because it would be against the interests of the Services. How can it be against the interests of the Services to accept an Amendment on the exact lines of the pledge he has already given? Even if he cannot accept this Amendment—and we propose to divide on it—will he at any rate make quite plain that nothing he has said tonight in any way detracts from the pledge, in the terms of this Amendment, which he has already given?

Mr. Alexander: I stand by every word of the pledge that was given.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 92.

Division No. 223.]
AYES.
[10.13 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt, Exch'ge)
Delargy, H. J


Adams, W T (Hammersmith, South)
Bramall, E. A.
Diamond, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Debbie, W.


Allen, A. C (Bosworth)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Dodds, N. N


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, George (Belper)
Donovan, T.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Driberg, T. E. N.


Attewell, H. C.
Buchanan, G.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Austin, H. Lewis
Burke, W. A.
Durbin, E. F. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Champion, A. J
Dye, S.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B
Chater, D
Ede, Rt Hon. J. C.


Bacon, Miss A
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Baird J.
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Balfour, A.
Collindridge, F.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Barton, C
Collins, V J
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Bechervaise, A. E
Colman, Miss G. M
Ewart, R.


Bellenger, Rt Hon. F. J
Comyns, Dr. L.
Fairhurst, F.


Berry, H.
Cook, T. F.
Farthing, W J.


Bing, G. H. C
Corvedale, Viscount
Field, Capt. W. J.


Binns, J.
Crawley, A
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Blackburn, A R
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Blenkinsop, A
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Blyton, W. R
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Boardman, H.
Deer, G.
Gibbins, J.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Gibson, C W.




Gilzean, A
Lipton, Lt.-Cot. M
Shackleton, E. A. A


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Logan, D. G.
Sharp, Granville


Gooch, E. G
Longden, F.
Shawcross Rt Hn Sir H (St Helens)


Gordon-Walker, P C
McEntee, V La T
Shurmer, P


Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Grey, C. F.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McKinley, A. S.
Simmons, C. J.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Skeffington, A. M.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
McLeavy, F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Gunter, R. J
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Smith, S. H (Hull, S W)


Guy, W. H
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Hall, W. G.
Marquand, H. A
Sparks, J. A


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R
Medland, H. M
Steele, T.


Hardy, E. A
Messer, F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Harrison, J.
Mitchison, G. R
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Moody, A. S.
Stross, Dr. B.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Swingler, S.


Holman, P.
Morley, R.
Sylvester, G. O.


Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)
Mort, D. L
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


House, G
Nally, W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Hoy, J
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hubbard, T.
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E (Brantford)
Titterington, M. F


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Tolley, L


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Oldfield, W. H
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Oliver, G. H
Vernon, Maj. W F


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Orbach, M.
Walkden, E


Jay, D. P. T.
Paget, R. T.
Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Watson, W. M.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S.E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


John, W.
Pargiter, G. A
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Pearson, A
Wigg, Col. G. E


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Peart, Capt. T. F
Wilkins, W. A


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Keenan, W
Price, M. Philips
Williamson, T


Kenyon, C
Pritt, D N.
Willis, E.


Kinley, J.
Proctor, W T
Woodburn, A


Kirby, B. V
Randall, H. E
Woods, G. S


Lavers, S.
Ranger, J.
Wyatt, W.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Young, Sir R (Newton)


Leonard, W.
Rhodes, H
Zilliacus, K


Leslie, J R.
Richards, R



Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Mr Hannan and Mr. Popplew


Lindgren, G. S
Segal, Dr. S





NOES.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Gridley, Sir A.
Peto, Brig. C. H M


Baldwin, A. E.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj. T. V H
Harvey, Air-Comdre A V
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Beechman, N. A
Head, Brig. A. H.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Bennett, Sir P.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Birch, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.
Raikes, H. V.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)
Howard, Hon. A.
Ramsay, Maj. S


Bossom, A. C
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)


Bowen, R.
Hurd, A.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Hutchison, Col. J R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ropner, Col. L


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Jennings, R.
Scott, Lord W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Kendall, W. D.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Langford-Holt, J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Byers, Frank
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Channor, H.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Studholme, H. G


Clarke, Col. R S.
Lipson, D. L.
Sutcliffe, H


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Teeling, William


Conant, Maj. R. J. E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A F


Darling, Sir W Y
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Touche, G. C.


Digby, S. W.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Wadsworth, G


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Walker-Smith, D.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W
Marlowe, A A. H
Ward, Hon. G. R


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marsden, Capt. A
Wheatley, Colonel M J


Fox, Sir G.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
White, J. B (Canterbury)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Maude, J. C.
Willoughby de Eresby Lords


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
York, C


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C E



Gage, C.
Nicholson, G
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Mr. Drewe and


Granville, E. (Eye)
Noble, Comdr A. H P
Commander Agnew

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(3) No person who has been entered or enlisted for service in the armed forces of the Crown under the National Service Acts after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-six, and before the commencement of this Act shall be required to serve therein under those Acts for a period longer than the appropriate period in accordance with the Schedule to this Act (Periods of service for men called up in 1947 and 1948).
This Subsection shall come into force on the passing of this Act.
This is an Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman has already directed a great many of his observations, and I am not at all optimistic about the effect that my arguments will have on this occasion. I do not think it is necessary to take up very much time in elaborating our arguments, but I want to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. In the White Paper on call-up to the Forces, paragraph 5, there is set out a schedule showing the way in which service was going to be tapered down from two years to 18 months. It is quite clear, and the right hon. Gentleman has already said that he recognises the fact, that the alteration in this Bill of 18 months whole-time service to 12 months must affect that tapering down. We have put on the Order Paper a new Schedule which goes with this Amendment. In it we have sought to effect that tapering down. I am rather at a loss as to the precise difference in value between a pledge of this Government in a White Paper and a pledge contained in a Statute, but I do say that if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept this Amendment, and the Schedule in which we have tried to put the tapering down in the right way, as we see it, at least he ought to give an undertaking that at the earliest possible moment he will publish a paragraph which will replace paragraph 5 of the White Paper, and will show to the public and to the men affected what the tapering down is to be. If he was able to do it in the White Paper when compulsory service was to be 18 months, surely there is no valid argument, unless those in the Forces are to be penalised as a result of his decision, for not doing the same thing now that the period of service has been reduced to 12 months.

Brigadier Peto: I beg to second the Amendment.
In the last few posts I have had letters asking exactly what terms the writers' sons or apprentices may have to serve during the coming two years. Whether they are called up in June or in March, the public have no idea whether they will be called up when they are exactly 18 years old or what terms of service they will have to perform. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, it is high time this information was published in the Press so that every one may know what their obligations are and what will be the terms of service. I suggest that this Amendment should be agreed to as it sets out, month by month, exactly what shall be the terms of service.

Mr. Alexander: I very much regret I cannot accept the Amendment in the terms in which it has been moved. As I have said already, I have given a very specific pledge that, with a few individual exceptions, none of the men affected by the Schedule in paragraph 5 of the White Paper will be required, whatever the term laid down, to serve after December, 1949. That pledge has been given. Some of them might go in to the Service for a year and a half if they were called up in 1948, and they might under the White Paper go on well into 1950. We shall not now ask them to serve in any period which lasts beyond 1949.

Mr. Stanley: Is not the right hon. Gentleman speaking on the wrong Amendment? Surely he only gives that date for the call-up after 1949?

Mr. Alexander: No. I have turned up the actual pledge. I will read out the words of the pledge. It is as follows, and these are my own words:
It will be the aim of the Government to ensure that so far as practicable all men called up before the new Bill comes into force on 1st January, 1949"—
and it certainly, therefore, includes the two classes, 1947 arid 1948—
will be released from whole-time service with the Forces before the first of the men called up under the Bill. But I should make it clear that it may not be possible to avoid exceptions to this aim in individual cases and for short periods:"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1947; Vol. 437. c. 447.]
I went on to give the details of what the possible exceptions might be. That pledge we stick to absolutely. The Amendment would take us beyond that. It seeks to


make us begin at once to lay down reductions of service for men called up after December, 1946. The Service authorities do not feel that they are in a position to lay down a detailed schedule of that kind at the moment, because of the needs of the Services. For the same reason, I am unable to accept the Amendment. I assure the House that the paragraphs in the White Paper are relevant to what we are now discussing and cover this matter; they cover the men called up in 1947 and 1948. The pledge will be strictly observed.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Paragraph 5 of the White Paper sets out a schedule tapering down the period of service to 18 months. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, now that the period of whole-time service is reduced to 12 months, he will promise a new edition of that paragraph. We have had no answer, and no reason.

Mr. Alexander: I have said that, at the moment, the Service authorities do not feel themselves able to produce such a tapering-off, because of the needs of the Services in this transitional period. We are doing our best to try to release the men of longer service. On the other hand, we are trying to ensure that in carrying out the age and service group release scheme, men are called up in 1947 and 1948 for specific periods, to assist us in the carry over. Therefore, I cannot undertake to reduce substantially the periods of service of those who are called up in the early part of 1947. We will endeavour by a tapering off process to do something to help them. But I cannot at the present moment produce a schedule of the kind referred to.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I would like to put two points to the right hon. Gentleman. One is a very large point and one is rather small, and both can be put shortly. The large point—a point can be large even in mathematics—is that the right hon. Gentleman much too often this evening has said something to the effect that the Service authorities could not have this or that, and are unwilling to do something or other. That kind of observation cannot possibly be an answer in this House. We quite understand that the Minister must be much influenced by what the Service authorities say, but Ministers must give the arguments to the House. They

cannot merely say, "The Service authorities cannot do this." That is not the way they treated us about the question of eighteen versus twelve months. The liner point I would like to put is this. In regard to both these Amendments the Minister has given us more than one assurance that there shall be a tapering off But the word "tapering" is not appropriate unless there is some continuity. By rejecting these two Amendments, the right hon. Gentleman is really making the thing into a series of bulges or steps rather than something which tapers. In particular, he refers to what he calls possible exceptions. He has asked us more than once to believe that the age and service group system would be worked equitably. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Service Ministers to give special attention at a later stage in the Bill to this small point. In calculating age and service groups, I am informed that in the Services, the six months which many of these young men spend as cadets in university towns, although not doing university business, is not counted as service. I very much doubt whether it is legally competent for the Service authorities to take that line, but no one would be likely to challenge them on the point. I should like an assurance that this will be looked into carefully by the Service Ministers to see whether it is proper, in a system of age and service groups, that months spent in that way should be omitted from the calculation. There is no doubt that it is felt to be grossly inequitable. We ought to have some assurance—and it is best to have it from the right hon. Gentleman, because all three Service Ministers are concerned—that that will be looked into, with a real intention to arrive at equity, and not merely to do what the Service Departments want.

Mr. Byers: I think the House, before it leaves this Amendment, should be clear that there is a difference between this Amendment and the pledge which the Minister has given. The Minister read out that pledge, and I think it was a good idea to refresh the memory of the House. By putting this Amendment in the Bill, as I see it, we put a statutory obligation on the Service authorities to release certain people at a certain time. The Minister said he would do his best, and would give also a guarantee that these people would


be released, except for certain individuals. There is a big difference between that pledge and the Amendment on the Order Paper. I feel that from the point of view of the individual—and after all the Debate on these two Amendments has been a battle of the individual against the Service Departments—it is right and proper to have this Amendment included in the Bill. I was a little surprised that the Minister, in answering the arguments for this Amendment, dealt only with what I might call the straight cases, those about whom there is no query and who are called up on a certain date, and who do their service. But I have had a number of inquiries recently about the case of a person called up in 1947 or 1948, whose service is then postponed for two years. Is is not necessary to clarify in this Clause the point as to whether a person called up registered under existing legislation, has to do his military service under the Bill we are now considering. This is an opportunity for clarifying that issue. This Clause is going to affect a number of people whose service is postponed for a year or eighteen months and I should be glad if the Minister could say a word or two about that matter.

Major Legge-Bourke: There is one other question arising out of what the right hon. Gentleman said, when he quoted his own guarantee to those who are called up before this Bill comes into operation. That is the matter of Service requirements. Some weeks ago I put a Question to the Secretary of State for War, and got an assurance, certainly in the case of the particular trades about which I asked him, on this subject. It is obvious that the Minister's decision to reduce from eighteen months to twelve months the period of call-up has put the Service authorities in an extremely difficult position. He comes down to the House tonight and says that the Service authorities simply cannot produce the tapering-off scale—the exact dates at which men will be released between 1947 and 1949. It seems to me that the Minister is directly responsible for that and being directly responsible, he owes it not only to the House but to all men who are going to be called up in that grade to give them some indication of two things. The first is whether they are going to be retained for a period

which will carry them into the period after the first year of National Service under this Bill. The second is—and I think he should give an assurance of this as soon as possible—that he will produce a schedule on the lines indicated by this Amendment, giving the exact dates. The least the Minister ought to do tonight is to give some idea to the House that he can produce figures which will put these people's minds at rest. The hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple (Brigadier Peto) raised the matter of correspondence which he had received. I can assure him that I have had more worries expressed about this particular aspect of the Bill than about any other issue arising out of the Bill. I warn the Minister that if he does not do this, he is going to cause a great deal of uncertainty throughout the country and a great deal of unnecessary discontent. It is up to him tonight if he cannot accept a plan in the Schedule consequential on this amendment, at least to give us some indication that he will be able to release the date.

Mr. Alexander: I do not want to appear discourteous in any way. I think that I can confine what I have to say to a very few words which will really cover the point which the hon. and gallant Member has just made. It is this: that every one of the men to be called up in the years 1947, 1948 that is, men covered by this Amendment knows specifically, at present, that his total service will not be more than the figures set out in the White Paper. It is a period of fixed service. I have given a pledge to the House and therefore to the men concerned that in view of the introduction of this new Bill to deal with new classes of men to be called up after January, 1949, none of them shall be called upon to serve after the period covered by the first twelve months service under the new Act. Therefore, I have already made them a substantial concession. In the interest of the Service I have already said that we cannot at the present time do more than promise to taper their service down so as to give them the advantage of the pledge in the best possible way we cap to fit needs of the Services. I would say further that we will endeavour, with regard to particulars, next time we issue a White Paper, to bring the position up-to-date, and to give the firmest information


we can of the position of these specific classes of men.

Mr. Pickthorn: Could the Minister promise at least that some consideration be given to my point about the Y scheme, and other similar cadets, and their age and service group, which I gather is not fairly considered at present?

Mr. Alexander: I thought that point was out of Order on this Amendment. But I promise that the record in HANSARD will be examined specially from that point of view.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 10.—(Further education during whole-time service. 7 & 8 Geo. 6. c. 31.)

Mr. Bellenger: I beg to move, in page 7, line 9, at the end, to insert:
(3) In making arrangements for such further education as aforesaid the Service Authorities shall have regard to any representations made to them by or on behalf of bodies of persons concerned with education.
The House will remember that in Committee my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) moved an Amendment which received some support on both side of the Committee in relation to this matter. I he purpose of my Amendment is to meet if not in the letter certainly in substance the point advanced by him. Although I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you are not calling the Amendment to the Amendment that stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), may I point out that my Amendment being the greater, covers his Amendment which is the lesser. I hope that without going into details tonight, the House will agree to my Amendment I have attempted honestly and fairly to meet the points put from both sides in Committee. I do not think the House will want me to explain in detail and go into all the various points which have been put already.

Mr. H. Strauss: I understand that the Amendment to the Amendment in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends—in line 2, to leave out from "by" to the end, and to add:
the Minister of Education of forwarded to them by the Minister of Education from a university or from a body of persons recognised by the Minister of Education as concerned with education.

—will not be called, and therefore it is convenient that I should speak at this stage. I understand that the reason for not calling the Amendment that it can conveniently be discussed on the right hon. Gentleman's new Subsection. Though I think the intention of his Subsection is admirable, it is unsatisfactory in the form in which it has been moved and something on the lines of my Amendment is really required. Let me give the reasons in outline. In the Debate in Committee, to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, it was agreed by Members who spoke from all sides that, whatever other differences there might be between us, the Minister of Education was very much concerned in this. In the right hon. Gentleman's Subsection there is no mention at all of the Minister of Education. If he is really to carry out his purpose efficiently, he must mention the Minister of Education. It may or may not be necessary to mention the Minister of Education as a Minister whom the Service authorities have to consult because, whether he is mentioned in that connection or not, the Minister of Education can of course make his wishes and his views known to his colleagues in charge of the fighting Services.
10.45 p.m.
There is, however, another respect in which I suggest that the Minister of Education must be mentioned, if the purpose of the new Subsection is to be fulfilled. I agree, and I expect it is common ground in all quarters of the House, that there are bodies concerned with education that can give valuable advice and make useful representations on this topic, but those words "bodies of persons concerned with education" are extremely wide and extremely vague. Let me put to the right hon. Gentleman some points which I think might command general assent. The first is this: A great many people whose views may not be very well worth hearing and who may not have any great claim to say that they are concerned with education, may trouble the Service authorities and give them a great deal of unnecessary work. What is more, some may worry one Service authority and some another, and there will be no guarantee of any uniform estimation of the value of these outside bodies by the different Service authorities. There is one member of the Government who is, by his very functions, enabled to judge the value of these out-


side bodies and that is the Minister of Education. I should have thought it would be very convenient to the Service authorities that all representations from these outside bodies should reach them via the Minister of Education in order that the Minister of Education may, if he thinks fit, comment on these representations. Anyhow, he can say whether or not the body making them is one that he recognises, with all his expert knowledge and experience, as a body concerned with education.
In order to carry out the purpose common, I believe, to all quarters of the House, and for the purpose of obtaining some uniformity in the conduct of the various Service authorities in dealing with education, and for the convenience of administration both by the Ministry of Education and by the Service authorities, I believe that something on the lines of the Amendment in my name should be incorporated in the Minister's Subsection. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to improve his Bill by providing that these outside bodies can make representations, but he has done so in language which is much too wide and too vague, and I ask him to consider the points I have made. If on looking into the matter, he realises the force of what I have said, I hope he will make the appropriate Amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I hardly think it is necessary to amend this new Subsection in this way. I have read carefully the Debate which took place previously and it seems to me that the essence of it was that there should be consultation with civilian authorities, and that this connection should be retained through this very precious Service year. The Army at any rate has an advisory board and therefore, I think, will be able to deal with the situation in its own way and modify the old Central Advisory Committee, which was very useful during the war but which may not be the right machinery now. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for Air are here. I think it is high time both of them set up comparable bodies in their respective Departments because, at the moment, we are 3,000 persons short as regards officers for those services.
Whatever the machinery is to be, there is one difficulty which I beg the Secretary of State for War to consider. So far as consultation in this country is concerned, it is allowed for in Clause 10, out when it comes to troops overseas some machinery will be necessary. I believe that too heavy weather has been made of this. There is only a year and there is not much that can be done. It has been impressed on me from all over the country that this Service year, is being regarded by some people in the education world as a year of deterioration. Therefore it is important that, in some way or other, we make it a Service year which will retain a connection with civilian education that we give the maximum physical and mental development during the short year in which these lads are going to serve, between school life and adult life. This new Subsection pretty well provides for his, and I think it is not necessary for any provision to be made for going to the Ministry of Education on everything

Mr. Hollis: I find that I cannot agree with the senior hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Lindsay). I think we all agree on the general desirability of the Subsection, but the hon. Member thinks that no Amendment of it is necessary. As things stand, at present without some Amendment as to who is responsible for judging, and who is the person concerned with education, the Service authorities are placed in an impossible position; and certainly so if they merely dismiss the representations of bodies of which they do not approve. They are acting contrary to the spirit of the Act in so doing. There is no need to be legalistic about it. "Bodies concerned with education" is obviously a phrase about people closely concerned with education, and no body which has no connection with education has a right to express views, but somebody must be a judge of which bodies are to be recognised. I submit that the logical person to make the judgment is the Minister of Education, and I cannot see now the argument that certain bodies within the Service Departments should concern themselves with education, if the whole idea is to continue with civilian education, can apply. Surely the more that subject is under the civilian and professional Ministry, and the less it is under the control of these bodies which, from their very nature, are unsuitable, the better. I think


that the Minister should meet the point in some way because, at present, the scheme is unworkable and will throw the whole educational machinery of the Services into chaos.

Sir William Darling: I feel that I am compelled to join in argument with those who ask the Minister to accept the Amendment. Long ago, it was said that "Education is the only serious business of the Republic." It was an American who said so, but I think that it would be a universally accepted belief. The fact that these young men are being removed from civilian education is an important fact, and something which may affect them. I would ask the Minister, Are we to be indifferent of the future of these young men? I found my period of service in the Armed Forces a fruitful and profitable one, but had it been supplemented by a period of civilian education, I might have made better use of my circumstances. Nothing is more deplorable than this apparent jealousy among Ministers. The Secretary of State for War may say that these men are protected by the Manual of Military Law and various Acts, and that they are his and his alone. I would say that his right hon. Friend the Minister for Education too has a right in regard to their welfare.
Reference has been made to bodies of educational experts whom the Minister has recognised, but there are many others. I should like to see the Ministry of Labour as well as the Ministry of Education consulted. I foresee a young man embarked upon a compulsory military career who does not seek to carry a field-marshal's baton in his knapsack but intends to follow very definitely a civilian career. Is he, during those years of service in the Army, to be denied any horizon whatever, except that of being a field-marshal or a Secretary of State for War? I would prefer it if the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Defence widened his horizon for him and suggested to him that the months of service were but the prelude to a better day. The industrialists want to know that the men carrying out this military service have certain ambitions to enter industry afterwards. The commercial men look forward to attracting promising recruits from this field. There must be many opportunities which should not be passed by.
The suggestion that the man who is to be a soldier by compulsion is to be sterilised, isolated and limited in the cold embraces of the Secretary of State for War alone seems to open up a singularly uncomfortable and unpalatable prospect. I beg His Majesty's Government to show here that vision they have shown in other directions and to accept the enlightened suggestion contained in the Amendment to the Amendment. They must be prepared to look on the military career as a prelude to a greater and very useful career. The hotel-keepers of this country see, in the men we train in the arts of war, probable recruits to the art and science of hotel-keeping and would like to direct these men while they are serving in the canteen or the officers' mess, to the potentialities which arise under those circumstances. If that is true of the noble prospect of hotel-keeping surely many other possibilities arise. There is the art of journalism.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I appreciate that there are a great many possibilities, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will not explore them all.

Sir W. Darling: I thought that in this great America which I am unfolding, I might indicate one or two of the lesser States. I thought hotel-keeping was one, and journalism another, but in deference to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I merely add the headings which I have written down here so carefully. Farming, for example. What admirable training—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker rose—

Sir W. Darling: I accept your Ruling that I should not elaborate this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought a mere monosyllabic recitation of the headings would be sufficient. I conclude by saying that this is a very narrow proposal of the Secretary of State. It is agreed to consult
…by or on behalf of bodies of persons concerned with education
I submit there can be no limitation of
…bodies of persons concerned with education.
We are all concerned with education—profoundly and deeply—and more concerned possibly with the education of these men, whose ordinary career has been restricted by compulsory military service, than other men. To narrow it down, as


this somewhat bald and to me very difficult Subsection seems to suggest, to
…by or on behalf of bodies of persons concerned with education
—is to invite a rebuff. I can come before the Secretary of State for War and say, "I am such a body." But the Secretary of State for War looks at me with a glinting and very disapproving look and says, "I do not recognise you as such a body." I am like all the common people of this country, deeply and profoundly concerned with education, and this lack of definition will deny me the opportunity of offering to serving men a wider experience than their military service gives them.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I did not rise before, because I was waiting for an intervention by the hon. and gallant Member who is most interested in this Amendment, the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg). In the Committee he moved an Amendment on which the Secretary of State for War gave a pledge, which has been redeemed by the Amendment now before us. I should be interested to know whether the hon. and gallant Member is satisfied with the new Amendment which has been substituted by the Secretary of State for War for the Amendment which he moved in Committee. I should be extremely surprised if he was satisfied. In fact several times I have seen him almost lift himself to his feet, and glance rather nervously half left; then, apparently he is met by some basilisk stare which forces him to resume his seat. I supported the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment because I thought it meant something. I must confess that the Amendment put down by the Secretary of State for War means nothing at all. He made it quite clear during the discussion in Committee that he thought the whole thing was nonsense and he has succeeded in producing an Amendment which makes nonsense of it. He assured us that it was his practice to consult the Minister of Education—and he has left all mention of that out of the Amendment. He told us that he worked in conjunction with bodies interested in education—and has left that out. All he has to do now is to
have regard to any representations made.
As I said, I thought the original Amendment had some, though not much, sub-

stance, I think the Amendment as it now appears on the Order Paper has no substance whatever.

Colonel Wigg: I owe the fact that the Amendment is on the Order Paper at all, not to my own powers of persuasion, but to the fact that the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), having had a good breakfast, came into the Committee at 8 o'clock in the morning, showing as much interest in the proceedings as he had shown at night. As a sensible person, if I cannot have the whole of my case conceded I am grateful for a bit of it. If my Amendment had been accepted in the first place, it would depend on the good will of the Secretary of State for War and the other Ministers and on hon. Members to see that it was carried out. The fact that the present Amendment is included in the Bill is a considerable step forward and it encourages me to believe that in the years to come something will be done for these young men and that they will be given an opportunity to turn their year of service to advantage and to prepare for a job when they come out of the Services. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for having put this Amendment down and I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for West Bristol, without whose help I could have made little progress.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Information to be furnished by education authorities.)

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, to leave out "purposes of," and to insert:
purpose of assisting his consideration of questions connected with their being called up for service under
This Amendment has been put down as a result of the points raised by the senior Burgess of Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) limiting the information we can get from educational institutions It is now confined to the purposes of the Measure.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am still rather sorry that it is felt necessary to have this statutory power. I cannot believe that in the absence of statutory power there would be any difficulty in getting the information required for purposes of this kind. However, I think that the Clause is slightly


improved by this Amendment, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for coming so far to meet me.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Adjustments of contracts of service and apprenticeship affected by annual training.)

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 9, line 39, at the beginning, to insert:
(1) Where by virtue of any contract of service or apprenticeship or of any order made or direction given under any enactment an employer is required to allow annual holidays to any person liable to be called up for training in pursuance of a training notice, the annual holidays shall not, except at his request, be allowed at times comprised within the period of training.
In this Section the expression 'annual holidays' does not include any hank holidays or other customary holidays on dates not fixed by the employers.
This is another Amendment which arises out of a previous discussion, when a promise was given that the matter would be examined. We hope that this Amendment will meet, the wishes of the House. It covers both the point of holidays that are taken with pay, and holidays taken without. It provides that where a man is called up for full-time reserve training any annual holidays which he is entitled to receive must not be given in the period he is under training unless he so wishes. There are probably cases in which the men concerned will wish to take the period as part of their holiday. This now applies to a holiday given under contract of service or apprenticeship, or a holiday given under statutory direction. Bank holidays are excluded, because they are not under the control of the employer. I hope that this Amendment will meet with the approval of the House. I have every reason to believe that it will meet with the approval of employers generally.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Early registration and calling up.)

Brigadier Head: I beg to move, in page 10, line 10, to leave out "be allowed to," and to insert "if he so desires."
This is a fairly straightforward Amendment. It will be recalled that during the Committee stage an Amendment was tabled, and to some extent was acceded to, to make it obligatory on the Minister to

permit call-up under the age of 18 when desired. The right hon. Gentleman went so far to meet us as to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may." This Amendment is merely to cross the "t's" and to ensure that we substitute the words "so desires" for the words at present in the Clause. It is not a matter of great substance, but it ensures that it is obligatory on the Minister to meet the wishes of the individual to be called up whenever he desires.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not wish violently to resist this Amendment. As the Clause now stands it is clear that—
The Minister shall, by regulations, make provision whereby, for sufficient cause.…
and so long as those are the governing words we do not object to the substitution of the words proposed in the Amendment. In those circumstances. I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 23.—(Interpretation.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 12, line 26, at the end, to insert:
'Training notice' means a notice served or to be served on a person during his term of part-time service whereby he is called up for training for a period of not less than six days.
This is an Amendment which results from those we have discussed on other. Clauses of the Bill. Unless any hon. Member desires me to repeat the information already given, I propose formally to move it. It is self-explanatory.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Application to Scotland.)

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 13, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(c) for any reference to the Lord Chancel for there shall, except where the context otherwise requires, be substituted a reference to the Lord President of the Court of Session
This Amendment must be clear to everybody in the House. It simply means that, so far as the Bill relates to Scotland, the Lord Chancellor should be the Lord President of the Court of Session. It is a consequential Amendment

Amendment agreed to

CLAUSE 26.—(Duration of National Service Acts.)

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 14, line 9, to leave out "date", and insert "day."
I requested the Minister to consider whether in page 4, line 24, he ought not to have the word "day" instead of the word "date." I think that in the hurry any reply on that matter was overlooked. Here I am inclined to think that "day" is the right word. It seems to me quite certain that the two words ought to be the same. It should either be
…for the said day such later day…
or
…for the said date such later date…
I do not give, what I think it is in Parliamentary Order to call a damn, but I think it is preferable to insert one or the other.

Mr. Isaacs: If this was the last Amendment on the Order Paper we might "call it a day" We propose to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. We will consider whether the word "day" or "date" should be used elsewhere if necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Length of whole-time Service.)

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to move, in page 15, line 5, after "practicable," to insert:
but in no case later than twenty eight days.
We had a certain amount of discussion on this matter during the Committee stage, and still we are not at all happy about it. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that there is in the minds of serving soldiers a suspicion about the word "deferment." There has been a great deal of deferment in releases from the Forces and so long as the words:
…or as soon as is practicable after, the expiration of a period of twelve months beginning with his entry or enlistment for service…
remain, the suspicion will continue. We are well aware that in the course of the Debate, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War put up the case of the man who was either in hospital or undergoing treatment, and said it would be unfair to him that he should be

discharged when he should be kept on full pay during that time. We entirely agree with that. I suggest that some protection, some other words it necessary, should be inserted to cover that position. There must be a definition of the word "practicable." It is too vague, and it arouses suspicion in the minds of soldiers who have known of cases being deferred for month after month. We feel that this should be put in the Bill in some way. In col. 1039 of HANSARD it will be seen that the Minister did undertake to look into this matter again. I imagine from the attention that I am getting from the Attorney-General that it is he who is going to reply, and I hope he will give an assurance that some words will be inserted to put a limit on the word "practicable." If it is only a case of covering and safeguarding those people who are under medical treatment or in hospital, and so on, words to that effect could quite easily be inserted.

11.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: We have given most careful and, I think, sympathetic consideration to this Amendment, which, as the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) has said, was the subject of a good deal of discussion in Committee, but I am afraid, if I may use the word, that it would not be practicable to accept it. The Clause as framed does not in any way give a licence to the Service authorities to prolong a man's service because it might be convenient to them to do so. What is "practicable" is, of course, a question of fact, and it would be by no means settled by the ipse dixit of the particular Service authority. In the last resort, if the soldier felt that he had been kept in the Service for longer than was necessary or practicable, it would be for the courts to decide whether it had been practicable or not to release him at an earlier date. I do not think the courts would regard themselves as being in any way bound by the view of the Service authorities on the matter—in fact, in my experience of them, they would view the opinion of those authorities, if it were expressed, with great jealousy. If in the event the court found that it had been practicable to release the man at an earlier date, they would no doubt award substantial damages against the Service Department which had improperly detained the man.
The object of this Clause, which is really much stricter as against the Service Departments than the phrase which is used in the existing Statutes, which is "with all convenient speed," is really to protect the serving man rather than to give the Service Departments any licence to detain him for longer than is necessary. It has been found in all previous Statutes dealing with this kind of matter that one must provide somehow for some sort of margin after the terminal date in order to meet the unexpected and exceptional case. It covers the kind of case which the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing had in mind, where a man is perhaps on his way back to be discharged, possibly from the Far East; he falls ill and has to be put into hospital en route, and the date passes. Unless one had some provision for a margin of this kind, it would no longer be legal to pay him his proper Service pay, or to pay allowances to his family, or, later on, to give him Service facilities for getting him home. Again, there is the case where he is on his way and the ship breaks down, or something of that kind occurs quite unexpectedly, and there is a delay, so that he cannot be got back to this country within the time of his service. That is the kind of exceptional or unlikely case one has to provide for by a suitable form of words when fixing a time limit of this kind. One can see at once that this Amendment would really be quite inapt if one reads it into the Clause itself. The Clause would then read:
The term of whole-time service shall be completed on or as soon as practicable but in no case later than 28 days after the expiration of the period of 12 months.
In other words, the service would in law be completed, although in fact and in law it was impracticable to complete it. That would make absolute nonsense of the Clause. If we could have found another form of words—if hon. Members opposite could suggest a practicable form of words—we should be very ready to consider it, but we have thought about this matter and have tried various alternative phrases, but we have not found one which is really apt to meet this purpose. We think these words are better, from the point of view of the serving man, than the words used in the existing Statutes, and for these reasons we hope that the Opposition will not press this Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I cannot say that I regard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer as convincing. We on this side of the House have always recognized the necessity for a margin, although that was not understood by the Secretary of State for War when we first moved this Amendment in Committee. Here you have an unlimited margin covered by a wording which is very vague in character. I am not in the least reassured by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observation that the man who is kept on longer than the courts think practicable will, after his ultimate release from the Services, have a remedy in damages. That gives me no confidence at all. The difficulty about this phrase is the different interpretations which may be put upon it by the man affected, and by the Service authorities.
May I put this case to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? There may be a conscript serving in Germany or Austria, whose period of service is due to expire. The Service authorities may regard it as not practicable to bring him back to this country at the date of expiry of his term of service. They may consider that it is more practicable that he should remain, perhaps, to act as an Army cook until his successor arrives. That is the sort of situation against which we want to guard—the different interpretations which may be put on this wording by a lawyer, by the Service authorities, and by the man affected. They may differ. It is a real difficulty, but I do not want to take up the time of the House in dealing with it now. As I said on the Committee stage, I think both sides of the House are in agreement on what we want to achieve. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said in his reply to the arguments is really to confess his inability to put this object into appropriate language for the purposes of an Act of Parliament. I should like to encourage him to make another effort. I think it is possible to find words of limitation, or words which do, in fact, express what we intend should be covered by the power to extend the period of whole-time service beyond twelve months. As the Clause stands, who is to judge of the practicability of bringing a man back within twelve months? Who will be in a position to challenge the voice of the Service authorities when the Service authorities say that


it would not be practicable to bring a man back on his due date? I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give further consideration to this matter with a view to putting into the Clause some words of limitation, or words which will indicate the sort of test which is to be applied in determining what is, or what is not, practicable.

Brigadier Low: I should like to pursue this argument, and in particular to refer to the arguments which the right hon. and learned Attorney-General used in trying to convince the House that the present words, "as soon as is practicable after," were more to the benefit of the serving man than the present words plus those my hon. and gallant Friend has moved. First, it seems to me that 28 days gives a perfectly reasonable period in which all those things to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred might take place. If there is a transport breakdown between Germany and this country, surely that transport breakdown—even if it were to take place under the nationalisation of transport in this country—would not be so bad that the man would be held up for 28 days. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not think as badly as that of his right hon. colleague the Minister of Transport? If that is so, 28 days is a perfectly reasonable limit but if the Attorney-General thinks that there may be such a breakdown as would detain a man for more than 28 days then surely there is some limit. I feel certain that the majority of the House will agree with me that it is desirable that some limit should be stated.
The Secretary of State for War used the argument on a previous occasion that some power must be kept in the Bill to pay a man who is sick. Is it the case that you could pay a man under the Schedule as it now stands, and could not pay the man under the Schedule if we amend it? It seems to me that in the case of a man lying sick in hospital it is perfectly practicable to terminate his whole-time service at any time—"practicable" though not desirable—and the word here is practicable. Therefore, it would appear that there is a power to pay a man who is sick beyond the twelve months period, beyond which he would normally be called. That appears in some other regulation and not in this Schedule.

I believe there are regulations which apply now to men in the Forces or the Auxiliary Forces whereby if they fall sick, before the end of the period of their service, there is provision for them to remain in receipt of pay until they have recovered from sickness. I think I am right in that and in any case the learned Attorney-General or one of the Service Ministers will put me right on this. Bearing those two points in mind, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman should reconsider his arguments, bearing in mind particularly the points put to him from this side of the House.

Captain Marsden: I had hoped that the Minister could find another form of words to meet this point. I am not satisfied with the First Schedule nor am I satisfied with the Amendment proposed. The Amendment proposes a definite period—28 days. My experience of the Service is that if you say 28 days, that is looked upon as a definite date. They will say, "Do not hurry him up; we still have some days more before the full period runs out." One could ask, Why not 14 days, or why not, say, 42 days? The same argument would apply. I agree that the words used are "as soon as practicable." I am not satisfied that the words "as soon as practicable" are adequate and I hope that some more applicable form of words will be found.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Byers: It seems to me that there is a point of substance in this although I do not agree with the Amendment. There are two problems. We are trying to give a certain amount of leeway to the Service authorities to deal with administrative problems as they arise—such as ships being delayed, people abroad being brought back from overseas, and so on. I think it is reasonable that the Service authorities should be given that leeway, though I agree with the argument advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) about giving the Services more leeway in this respect. If you give them one day they will take it, and if you give them 14 they will take it, and if you give them 28 days they will take that. It could be argued that you might just as well give them 12 months, and have it finished on that date and no nonsense about it. There are in fact these administrative considerations


and a certain amount of leeway is required.
I suggest that the Minister should look into this to see what is a reasonable amount of leeway. After a certain date it becomes a question of the interests of the individual himself and there the Minister, quite rightly, does not wish to deprive himself of the opportunity of benefiting the individual. Would it not meet the case, if, having selected a date when the Service authority should have to discharge their own obligation, we should include some phrase such as "except with the agreement of the man"? I put that forward merely as a suggestion. I hope the Government are not considering this purely as a benefit question. There may be other reasons. You may want to pay a man who has somehow got stuck in Marseilles and cannot get out. You might have a man perfectly fit and healthy, and he might be in India. Do not let the right hon. Gentleman be persuaded by the medical advice he gets so willingly. The only point of my intervention is to show it is a point of substance. I think it can be solved, but I do not think this Amendment can solve it.

The Attorney-General: I agree with the hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers) that the point is one of substance. I am ready to consider any suggestion put forward in regard to it. It is a little remarkable that no hon. Member who has spoken has been able to put forward any alternative suggestion, except the hon. Member for Northern Dorset. He put forward the perfectly proper suggestion that the margin should be made to depend on the man concerned. But that is not really practicable. We are legislating here for the exceptional case, the unlikely case. A man may be ill, or unconscious, or mentally ill, or for some other reason may not be able to give his consent. A man serving on a foreign station may have gone over the border, on the day he was due to be discharged, and may have been detained. Should we, in that case, have to deprive him of the protection to which he is entitled as a member of His Majesty's Forces? There are all sorts of unlikely and exceptional cases of that kind and the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) has made it clear you cannot meet these cases by laying down a time limit of 14 days or 40 days or 400 days.

It is not a question of who to deal with but of laying down a time limit. You must find an appropriate form of words having the elasticity necessary in marginal cases.
These words, "as soon as practicable," are very familiar to those who study our Statute Book. There is often a difference of opinion in regard to them. There may well be a difference in interpretation given to them by serving men and by the Service Departments. If there is such a difference of opinion one will have to resort in this case, as in all other cases where these words are used in statutes, to the law. I agree the law is not always a very efficacious and expeditious remedy, but I have a little more confidence in the ultimate sanction of the law than the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I do think that, if a man is detained for a period which he considers is beyond what is necessary, he is likely to come back to this country and take advice, and that he is likely to be advised that he would have a very good and proper remedy available in the courts in this country. If hon. Members opposite can think of any alternative form of words—we have done our best—to that which we have used, we will certainly give consideration to it. But we must have some form of words which will provide a certain degree of elasticity in the exceptional case, but do not give licence to the Service Departments unduly to prolong the case.

Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the question about the sick man?

The Attorney-General: I am sorry. I did not make a note of it and the point slipped my mind. I am quite clear on this point. If, under this Schedule, the man's service comes to an end at the end of 12 months or 12 months plus 28 days or whatever period it may be that is done, there will no longer be any legal entitlement to Service pay or Service allowances.

Amendment negatived.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman): I beg to move, in page 15, line 21, to leave out sub-head (ii).
In Committee we discussed this subhead and as soon as it became plain that this was an administrative matter, which had no relation to the maintenance of


discipline, and that the contention of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that there should be no distinction between absence and desertion, was a valid one, I undertook to move a suitable Amendment on the Report stage. This Amendment gives effect to that promise and I trust the House will accept it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should not like this Amendment to pass without saying "Thank you" to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has met our suggestion.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 23, after "was," insert "absent as a deserter or."—[Mr. J. Freeman.]

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Minor and Consequential Amendments of the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1946.)

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 17, line 17, after "forces," to insert:
(not earlier than the third day after the date of the service of the notice).
This gives effect to an undertaking given during the Committee stage that a man would be entitled to at least 14 days' notice of his call-up.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 17, line 18, at the end, to insert:
and after the said subsection there shall be inserted the following proviso—
Provided that an enlistment notice shall not require the person upon whom it is served to present himself on a day earlier than the fourteenth day after the date of the service of the notice or such earlier day as may be determined at his request."—[Mr. Ness Edwards.]

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, at the end, to add:
and if before the expiry of the said fourteenth day that person gives written notice to the Minister that he disputes his liability to be called up under this Act for whole time service, then the Minister shall refer the question in dispute to a referee, and the notice shall not become operative to enter or enlist that person unless a referee selected by the Minister from a panel of persons nominated by the Lord Chancellor, after inquiring into and determining the question in dispute, directs

that the notice shall become operative so to do on such date as may be specified in the direction.
I think we are now approaching the end of our labours and so far as I can determine this is the last Amendment of substance we have to discuss. Even though it be a late hour I would not like the House to under-estimate the importance I attach to this Amendment. I do not think that I need move it in any detail because we have discussed the matter before. But I must say that the Government have now moved an Amendment to Clause 5, which provides that this machinery be adopted and the matter be referred to a referee in the case where a man who has been called up for whole-time service has volunteered and joined an auxiliary force, and has been assessed for part-time service. If in this narrow Clause it is right to import that machinery to provide for determination by referee rather than by court-martial, the case for this Amendment is much stronger, because the effect of this Amendment will be this. Any man served with a notice calling him up for whole-time service for 12 months will have the right, if he disputes his liability, to have the question determined by a referee from a panel selected by the Lord Chancellor, rather than by court-martial, if he has been arrested and put in custody pending trial. I do not think, at this late hour, that there is any need for me to say any more except to express the hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. If they will, it will bring the machinery into line with that machinery brought forward by the Government today, and it will also determine whether a man is ordinarily resident in this country. It will mean that the man shall be dealt with in this way rather than by court-martial, not in the least degree familiar with the provisions of this Act.

Mr. Gage: I should hope, also, that the Government will accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment because the Clause, as it stands, will mean that a man who does not report for service will have his first opportunity of making objections only before a court-martial. I do not desire, at this hour, to go much farther, but, on the Committee stage, the argument was advanced that, under Section 154 of the Army Act, the Amendment was unneces-


sary because a man would appear before a magistrate. The next point was that under Section 163 of the Army Act it is not always necessary for a deserter to appear before a magistrate. He can be apprehended and by implication under that Section, a document signed by a police officer or anyone else is sufficient at a court-martial to prove that the man was a deserter. I should remind the House that, in actual practice, a deserter does not appear before a magistrate. The other fallacy is that, even if brought before a magistrate, it so often happens in practice for the magistrate to ask if all the notices have been complied with, and the answer is "Yes," and the magistrate would then say, "Very well, in those circumstances you can raise whatever you wish when you get to your destination."
I have had good experience of cases of this sort. I had actual experience of one case which I would like to mention to the House. The victim in this case was a stalwart and upstanding Irishman from South of the Border; he was accustomed to come to this country, do some work, and then go hack to Ireland. I should say that this may be considered to be a border-line case, but the first fact is that this man took the view hat he was not liable for military service. Unfortunately. the officials of the Ministry took an opposite view. In due course he found himself served with an enlistment notice, but being a stout fellow, he consigned that to the place he thought most appropriate for it and took no notice of it. That was followed by a telegram from his commanding officer-to-be who suggested to him that if he did not report on a certain date he would be treated as a deserter. He ignored the telegram. The telegram was followed by two gentlemen whom he could not treat in that way, two military policemen who apparently had never heard of Section 154 of the Army Act. They brought him to Ballykinlar in the North of Ireland, where he was thrust into the guardroom of a famous Irish regiment and told that he was going to be a soldier.
11.45 p.m.
He asked for a copy of the National Registration Act, but instead of that he received next morning a visit from a drill-sergeant who carried in one band a blackthorn, as is the custom, and in the other—this fusilier being a large man—a very small suit of battledress. That was the

ordinary method by which this sort of man was dealt with. The fusilier was told to put on the battledress and when he explained the difficulties and went into the legal niceties of the case, the drill-sergeant told him he really was not interested, but if he did not put on the battledress he would be charged with disobedience of a lawful command. The soldier did not put it on, and appeared before his commanding officer. His commanding officer, an understanding man from the same part of the world, when he heard the case put up, said that he also had had difficulties with officials, who were troublesome people, and the difficulty was that they were often right. He said it would be a sensible thing if the fusilier went off and put on the battledress, and then there would be no more trouble about it. However, this fusilier was made of sterner stuff and did not, and came back next day and was awarded seven days' detention, which was again the normal step in all these case, because this was quite a normal case.
After seven days' detention the battledress was produced again and the unfortunate fusilier, in his grey civilian suit and getting rather battered from detention in the cells, again refused. This time his commanding officer said that he was sorry but this was too much. He had explained everything to the fusilier and he must now go for trial by court-martial. I saw the fusilier and I explained to him as best I could when he told me his point how he should take it. I advised him—it might not be the best advice—that he should make a plea as to jurisdiction, and he did so. He said that he would argue his own case, and he argued it exceedingly well. Eventually the court came to the conclusion on the preliminary point that he was under the jurisdiction of the court, in other words, that he was amenable to military law. Then came the question of whether he was guilty of disobedience of a lawful command. The fusilier said that for the first time he had had his case heard, and for the first time he had been able to put his view forward. He said he thought that there was cogency in the arguments advanced against him and that if he was allowed a rather bigger suit of battledress he would put it on. He was given a bigger suit of battledress and put it on, and in 10 weeks he was


one of the best soldiers we had, and had a stripe.
One might have thought that his trials and troubles were at an end. Of course, that was not the case. While he was soldiering and getting ready for his draft to go overseas, the court-martial papers by devious channels had made their way back to the War Office or some remote fastness where an important officer, no doubt, looking at them, said that the King needed no unwilling soldiers; and word came back that the fusilier was to be discharged. These were words the Irishman could not understand, and he said, "First of all, you tell me I shall be court-martialled if I do not put on the uniform, and now you tell me that I will be court-martialled if I do not take it off. I am only 15 miles from the Border, but have to be taken to London to have my uniform taken off, and then taken back to Dublin. It seems odd, but if you insist, I will go," and he went. He arrived back in Dublin without a penny in his pocket, and walked the whole way to the Border, 75 miles, saying in a good Tipperary accent, "I come to enlist voluntarily now. Send me to my unit, and tell them I am reporting back."
My purpose in telling this story is to try to avoid other men, Irishmen or Englishmen, if not so stalwart and steadfast in their character, from being hauled off again through all the preliminaries which are always gone through from the commanding officer eventually to the court-martial. One has had experience of it. It is, in fact, the first occasion on which the man who denies his liabilities under this Measure—the first occasion as in the case of my friend the fusilier—has his case heard. So I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reject the advice he had last time, even though he had it for nothing, and accept my advice, which, after all, is also free, and at the same time accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I certainly have had a very formidable case put up against me. I hope I shall forget about the fusilier in the course of my sleep tonight. This is the ground we went over very fully in the Committee stage. We argued it almost to shreds. We have been asked tonight to redeem in part the undertaking I gave during the Committee stage, and I would

endeavour to see that each man's liability to service should be decided by a nonmilitary machine. That is the first point.
Secondly, we have been asked to apply to the man who is going to do his fulltime service that type of machinery we have provided for in the case of the part-time service. Let us see the exact processes. During the war we called up 5,000,000 men. It is notorious that Government Departments make mistakes, and it is fairly apparent that the War Office made its share of mistakes. Here we have to envisage under the Bill a normal flow of roughly 200,000 men going into the Forces every year. By and large the call up will be limited to men on reaching the age of 18. Their liability is determined in the first place by their registration, and if a man does not register for military service he can be summoned by the Ministry of Labour to appear before the local magistrates. If he is not a person to whom the Act applies, he cannot be compelled to register and his case would be dismissed. At that first stage the question of his liability is determined. I agree that there may be some men who, having registered, might not be liable at that time for service. The next step is, having registered and gone through that part of the machine, they would then be called up for medical examination. The man who is not liable would naturally refuse to react to the call to the medical board. If he refuses to go to the medical board because he says he is not liable, nothing happens to him until the Ministry of Labour summonses him before the local magistrates. Again he can argue his case. He is not arrested, and the magistrates can decide whether or not the Act applies to him, and whether, in fact, he has committed an offence by not appearing before the medical board. So he has two chances of determining his liability under this Measure.
Then there is a third chance. I agree that there has been much dispute on this third chance. I am still advised that having accepted his liability for registration, having accepted his liability for appearing before the medical board, if he fails to answer the call-up for his fulltime service, the normal course and the legal practice—I know that there is dispute about it—is for him to be taken before the local magistrates. It seems clear that that is the normal process, but


I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the man is now going to get 14 days' notice of his call-up; we have just decided that. He can go to the Ministry of Labour and say, "You are calling me up and you ought not to do so. I am not liable." But if he has accepted liability for registration and liability for appearance before the medical board, it does seem that on the face of it he is liable under the Bill. I should have thought that that was conclusive, because he cannot be called up to the medical board unless he has registered, and he cannot register unless he is liable. Nor can he be called up for full-time service unless he has been medically graded. Thus, he has those two opportunities of deciding his liability in a legal way, without inconvenience to himself, without any question of arrest or of a military escort without even appearing before the hon. and learned Gentleman in his former capacity of Judge-Advocate in the Army.
He has all those safeguards, and I am quite satisfied that in those circumstances the man's liability can be determined by non-military machinery. That was the undertaking which I gave to the Committee. To take the other case that has been made against us, in regard to the part-time service, there is no such machinery in that case. If a man is issued with a notice he will run all the hazards of arrest and a military escort. In those cases it is not a matter of law but a question of period, which can well be left to a civilian referee. That is the reason why we have provided the new machinery in the case of part-time service. Those are the reasons why I must ask the House to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: With the leave of the House, may I put this point? The procedure which the Parliamentary Secretary has outlined with regard to registration and medical inspection was the procedure to which presumably the fusilier and many others were subject. There is nothing novel in that. Section 163 of the Army Act does not apply so as to bring a person arrested for desertion before a police court.

12 m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: As a layman I must not attempt to argue with a lawyer, but I have looked at the case of the Amendment in particular. Surely, the case to which the right hon. Gentleman now

refers is one in which the man confesses he is a deserter. When the man confesses he is a deserter, I agree, it can be short-circuited straight into the hands of the military. In the normal case of the man who says he is not a deserter, I am still advised that he must be taken before the magistrates. I should have thought those three special measures give the man ample protection against any abuse or malpractice as far as Service authorities are concerned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary has put up a very much better case than he did on a previous occasion. The only difficulty I feel about this matter is in connection with the first two safeguards that he has mentioned, those of taking objection at registration or subsequently when summoned before a medical board. They are sufficient safeguards if every young man of 18 is a trained lawyer quick to apprehend the precise significance of this Bill and of every provision of it, and also apt to take a point of law at every convenient opportunity. But the Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well that he is not dealing with that sort of person at all. He is dealing with young men inexperienced in the world and probably as ignorant of the detailed provisions of this Bill as many of us were before we began to study it. Therefore, I am not convinced that the safeguards which he has outlined are adequate.
The further safeguards proposed in this Amendment would only come into operation if the previous safeguards proved inadequate. If any young man who desired to dispute his liability for service took this point at registration or before the medical board, the proposal in this Amendment would not come into operation at all. If the Parliamentary Secretary is right, and those safeguards are adequate, then this further safeguard would be a dead-letter, but it would certainly do no harm. It would not cause any trouble to the Parliamentary Secretary or his Department. On the other hand, if we are right and these safeguards are inadequate, this further safeguard is of certain value. If he accepted the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and if his own view was right, it would not make very much difference, but if our view was right it would make a substantial difference. It is an additional safeguard to meet a very difficult situa-


tion in a minority of cases. Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter and say that, while perhaps the Opposition are being overcautious, over-caution in this matter is not a bad fault, and he is prepared to insert this additional precaution.

Mr. Ness Edwards: With the leave of the House, I would say that there are a lot of young men about in the large cities who, I am afraid, would use this in order to get a deferment or a postponement of their service for motives not of the highest. The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I assure him that the Ministry of Labour, during and since the war, has had experience in this matter. We ought not to create provisions whereby men are enabled to postpone their service. They can get a deferment of a month or two without any cost.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Of course, they can. All they have to say is that they are not liable. We have looked at this very closely and with great sympathy. I think the undertakings to the House have been carried out completely. I ask hon. Gentlemen to realise that perhaps while they should be very careful about preserving the rights of the citizen, there are very great dangers in accepting the Amendment as it appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary really cannot get away with that. Such an ill-disposed young man, and there may be some, really would not get a month or two if the machinery of this system of referees were improved. There is no reason why they—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should ask the leave of the House if he wishes to speak again.

Hon Members: No.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary was granted it.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Apparently hon. Members opposite are not prepared to allow the case to be put.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Local and Appellate Tribunals.)

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 20, line 7, to leave out "hear any particular case," and to insert:
attend any particular session of the tribunal.
This Amendment has been put down to meet criticisms by the other side. There was a feeling, when the matter was before the Committee, that the reference to the Members whom the Minister selected should not refer to a particular case. We propose to take out the words "any particular case" and to put in "any particular session of the tribunal," so that the Minister will call people to attend a session and not to take a particular case.

Mr. H. Strauss: I thank the Minister for what I think is an improvement of the Schedule. I believe, if he will consult his legal advisers, that he will be informed that there is no earthly reason why he should not also omit "to be selected by the Minister," and I hope he will. I think it would be even better if he omitted those words as well. Nevertheless, I thank him for the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 20, line 21, leave out "hear any particular case," and insert:
attend any particular session of the tribunal.

In page 21, line 7, column 3, after "words," insert:
'(not earlier than the third day after the date of the service of the notice)' and."—[Mr. Isaacs.]

Bill to be read the Third time this day.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Michael Stewart.]

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.